Jump to content

Absolute accuracy


thehoomer
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I’m sure most of us have witnessed it; team of cachers split up for whatever reason and then re-log all their previously found caches under their new name. Last night though, I had an email notification of a DNF from the past! I’m just interested, is there some kind of automatic feature which performs this action or is it still the case that you have to re-log all your previously found caches one by one? This particular cacher is obviously a stickler for accuracy and personally, I value my DNF list as a historical record as much as I value my finds, so I am right with him/her. Has anyone else seen this?

Link to comment

I’m sure most of us have witnessed it; team of cachers split up for whatever reason and then re-log all their previously found caches under their new name. Last night though, I had an email notification of a DNF from the past! I’m just interested, is there some kind of automatic feature which performs this action or is it still the case that you have to re-log all your previously found caches one by one? This particular cacher is obviously a stickler for accuracy and personally, I value my DNF list as a historical record as much as I value my finds, so I am right with him/her. Has anyone else seen this?

I think it is probably a manual logging, but it arouses my suspicions, mainly as there are several UK challenge caches out there which require DNFs prior to a find in some shape or form. Let's hope this cacher isn't cooking the books! (I'm sure they're not ;)) Is this DEFINITELY the case of a team splitting, or is that something you've guessed at?

 

There are 2 challenge caches which need you to DNF a cache 3 times before finding it...

There is 1 challenge which just needs you to have logged 100 DNFs in your caching career

There is 1 challenge which requires you to have turned 25 from DNFs to finds (i.e. you need to have logged the DNF at least one day before logging the find).

 

It's this last challenge; the newer of the 4, which could have been the stimulus for this extra old DNF (if team splitting is not the cause). If it's combined with a change of name, then obviously there's less likely to be skulduggery afoot, though. It's possible they both DNFd it at the time and now the individual cacher who has the new name. Have you checked to see if this is the case?

 

If not, I can provide hyperlinks to the 4 challenges concerned so you can check they're not cheating if you want. Depends how fastidious you want to be.

Link to comment

 

If not, I can provide hyperlinks to the 4 challenges concerned so you can check they're not cheating if you want. Depends how fastidious you want to be.

Hi Mellers, I'd be interested in seeing the challenges anyway. It does seem a bizarre way to construct a challenge and one which could so easily be faked, a days walk round the Mega series with out looking could get you 100 DNFs in a day!

Link to comment

 

If not, I can provide hyperlinks to the 4 challenges concerned so you can check they're not cheating if you want. Depends how fastidious you want to be.

Hi Mellers, I'd be interested in seeing the challenges anyway. It does seem a bizarre way to construct a challenge and one which could so easily be faked, a days walk round the Mega series with out looking could get you 100 DNFs in a day!

3 of the challenges were placed well before the guidelines were tightened so that may be possibly why they might seem unusual:

 

ATLANTIC VIEW : 43 : Pepper Hole Challenge

"You must have logged three DNFs on the same cache and then demonstrated perseverance by finding the cache."

 

Perseverance (a challenge cache)

"You must have logged three DNFs on the same cache and then demonstrated perseverance by finding the cache."

 

Did You Log It? (a challenge cache)

"You must have logged at least 100 Did Not Finds (DNF’s) on geocaching.com."

 

The 4th is more recent:

Try, Try Again - A Challenge Cache

"Show that you have DNFd 30 different caches that you have found at a later date." (sorry my original note said 25 which was from memory - it's actually 30) "To preserve some integrity there needs to be at least one day difference between the DNF date and the found date. To be clear, this isn't about suddenly logging lots of DNFs, it is to show tenacity and desire to never give up!"

 

I quite like them as challenges (particularly the last one) but then I am biased as I qualify for all 4!

Link to comment

I’m sure most of us have witnessed it; team of cachers split up for whatever reason and then re-log all their previously found caches under their new name. Last night though, I had an email notification of a DNF from the past! I’m just interested, is there some kind of automatic feature which performs this action or is it still the case that you have to re-log all your previously found caches one by one? This particular cacher is obviously a stickler for accuracy and personally, I value my DNF list as a historical record as much as I value my finds, so I am right with him/her. Has anyone else seen this?

I think it is probably a manual logging, but it arouses my suspicions, mainly as there are several UK challenge caches out there which require DNFs prior to a find in some shape or form. Let's hope this cacher isn't cooking the books! (I'm sure they're not ;)) Is this DEFINITELY the case of a team splitting, or is that something you've guessed at?

 

There are 2 challenge caches which need you to DNF a cache 3 times before finding it...

There is 1 challenge which just needs you to have logged 100 DNFs in your caching career

There is 1 challenge which requires you to have turned 25 from DNFs to finds (i.e. you need to have logged the DNF at least one day before logging the find).

 

It's this last challenge; the newer of the 4, which could have been the stimulus for this extra old DNF (if team splitting is not the cause). If it's combined with a change of name, then obviously there's less likely to be skulduggery afoot, though. It's possible they both DNFd it at the time and now the individual cacher who has the new name. Have you checked to see if this is the case?

 

If not, I can provide hyperlinks to the 4 challenges concerned so you can check they're not cheating if you want. Depends how fastidious you want to be.

Blimey, here was me thinking it was all just innocent logging. I had no idea that this could’ve been part of a challenge and there was a possibility of some kind of ulterior motive. I’ve only heard the term, ‘Challenge cache' and as a result of (perhaps) short-sighted disinterestedness, have never looked at what was involved. The log says that they are just re-logging all their previous finds/DNF's due to a change of name. Seems like a bizarre challenge, perhaps my disinterestedness wasn’t such a bad idea :laughing: .

Thanks for opening my eyes though.

Link to comment

 

If not, I can provide hyperlinks to the 4 challenges concerned so you can check they're not cheating if you want. Depends how fastidious you want to be.

Hi Mellers, I'd be interested in seeing the challenges anyway. It does seem a bizarre way to construct a challenge and one which could so easily be faked, a days walk round the Mega series with out looking could get you 100 DNFs in a day!

3 of the challenges were placed well before the guidelines were tightened so that may be possibly why they might seem unusual:

 

ATLANTIC VIEW : 43 : Pepper Hole Challenge

"You must have logged three DNFs on the same cache and then demonstrated perseverance by finding the cache."

 

Perseverance (a challenge cache)

"You must have logged three DNFs on the same cache and then demonstrated perseverance by finding the cache."

 

Did You Log It? (a challenge cache)

"You must have logged at least 100 Did Not Finds (DNF’s) on geocaching.com."

 

The 4th is more recent:

Try, Try Again - A Challenge Cache

"Show that you have DNFd 30 different caches that you have found at a later date." (sorry my original note said 25 which was from memory - it's actually 30) "To preserve some integrity there needs to be at least one day difference between the DNF date and the found date. To be clear, this isn't about suddenly logging lots of DNFs, it is to show tenacity and desire to never give up!"

 

I quite like them as challenges (particularly the last one) but then I am biased as I qualify for all 4!

 

They certainly do seem unusual, and utterly pointless. Not least because as I sat in my nice warm living room yesterday watching the rain I must have failed to find thousands of caches. I don't know I could be bothered to log DNF against all of them though, that would have taken up my entire afternoon that I could have spent far more usefully watching reruns of Top Gear.

Link to comment

They certainly do seem unusual, and utterly pointless. Not least because as I sat in my nice warm living room yesterday watching the rain I must have failed to find thousands of caches. I don't know I could be bothered to log DNF against all of them though, that would have taken up my entire afternoon that I could have spent far more usefully watching reruns of Top Gear.

Wandering off the initial subject a bit now... but what's one man's "game of golf" is another's "log walk spoiled". Speaking of things which are utterly pointless, I'm sure there would be some people who think that way about caching full stop.

 

I like them as they have actually encouraged me to log ALL my DNFs when I used to have a personal rule where I'd only log DNF if I couldn't find it three times. I used to think that my DNF would have the CO rushing out to check straight away when I knew that more often than not it would be me being rubbish. These days I know most (not all of course) COs will wait for several DNFs anyway before checking a cache so I'm happier to log them.

 

However, when I compose a DNF I'll try to put some constructive feedback (you know the sort of thing, "A One star difficulty hide without a hint is always going to be very tricky" or something like that). If it's helped encourage me to be more forthcoming with my DNF feedback then I can't be the only one and it's all good.

Link to comment

They certainly do seem unusual, and utterly pointless. Not least because as I sat in my nice warm living room yesterday watching the rain I must have failed to find thousands of caches. I don't know I could be bothered to log DNF against all of them though, that would have taken up my entire afternoon that I could have spent far more usefully watching reruns of Top Gear.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure that the guidlines don't allow "negative" stats for Challenge Caches any more (for the above reasons!). Also, it can't be a DNF if you didn't actually look for the cache in the first place; so there was nothing for you to log...

Link to comment

They certainly do seem unusual, and utterly pointless. Not least because as I sat in my nice warm living room yesterday watching the rain I must have failed to find thousands of caches. I don't know I could be bothered to log DNF against all of them though, that would have taken up my entire afternoon that I could have spent far more usefully watching reruns of Top Gear.

Wandering off the initial subject a bit now... but what's one man's "game of golf" is another's "log walk spoiled". Speaking of things which are utterly pointless, I'm sure there would be some people who think that way about caching full stop.

 

I like them as they have actually encouraged me to log ALL my DNFs when I used to have a personal rule where I'd only log DNF if I couldn't find it three times. I used to think that my DNF would have the CO rushing out to check straight away when I knew that more often than not it would be me being rubbish. These days I know most (not all of course) COs will wait for several DNFs anyway before checking a cache so I'm happier to log them.

 

However, when I compose a DNF I'll try to put some constructive feedback (you know the sort of thing, "A One star difficulty hide without a hint is always going to be very tricky" or something like that). If it's helped encourage me to be more forthcoming with my DNF feedback then I can't be the only one and it's all good.

 

The reason I say they are pointless (and as a cacher I appreciate a non-cacher may consider our hobby to be pointless in itself) is that a find can be verified while a DNF cannot. Nobody can possibly know whether I hunted for an hour, walked through without even slowing, or never went anywhere near the place. So to qualify for the cache all I need to do is pick a cache, log a DNF making some vague comments about how I'd hoped to find it on the way through and will have to come back, then go find it another time.

 

I usually log a DNF if I've looked but not found but if it was a short diversion from some other activity and I didn't spend very long looking sometimes I don't bother.

Link to comment

They certainly do seem unusual, and utterly pointless. Not least because as I sat in my nice warm living room yesterday watching the rain I must have failed to find thousands of caches. I don't know I could be bothered to log DNF against all of them though, that would have taken up my entire afternoon that I could have spent far more usefully watching reruns of Top Gear.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure that the guidlines don't allow "negative" stats for Challenge Caches any more (for the above reasons!). Also, it can't be a DNF if you didn't actually look for the cache in the first place; so there was nothing for you to log...

 

I think you're right in that such challenges are disallowed. My point was that a DNF cannot be verified, therefore saying that I have to find a cache I previously failed to find says little more than "find a cache and make up a DNF log for a couple of days previously".

 

To me the idea of a challenge is that it's a challenge to complete, not a hurdle that takes a few seconds of thought to circumvent. But then I guess that's why they were disallowed.

Link to comment

Relogging finds automatically would be fairly easy now using GSAK and a 'My Finds' PQ

 

Relogging all DNFs would be trickier because they are only included in the My Finds PQ if the cache was subsequently found.

 

Mark

 

But.

If you're enough of a pedantic cacher, having logged your DNF on the site, you then download the GPX file of the cache and keep it in your DNF database in GSAK... ;)

 

:wacko:

Link to comment

And at the end of the day they're only cheating themselves, so who really cares :)

 

I completely agree and as the recent Geocaching newsletter said:

 

"You've looked. You really have. The geocache is not a container magnetized under the park bench. It's not that funny looking rock, and of course it's not under the lamp post cover. You've checked the previous logs and the hint. The geocache could be there, but you can't seem to find it. You give up (for now). Geocaching doesn't stop there though. Here's what you do. You log a DNF on the geocache page. It's "Did not find" and it means, "I care."

When you log a DNF, you're telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You're also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be located at the posted coordinates.

If you're a geocacher who logged any of the more than nine million DNF's posted to Geocaching so far, thanks from the geocaching community. It's a small way to help ensure the quality of geocaching. Plus, you can always go back and search again. Who knows, maybe this time you'll catch a break and log a "Found it!""

 

Would someone really ruin their geocaching history just to meet a challenge? I guess some might but I wouldn't, I treasure my DNF history as much as my finds.

 

Micky TP

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...