Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

MISTs kinda bug me.

That there is any controversy over what as MIST is a bit odd.

 

"Hey look! I found a MIST in this pokey tree thing!"

 

"Is it a pine tree, a spruce tree, or a fir tree?"

 

"I dunno. It hurt like hell! I guess it's a Pain Tree!"

 

:laughing:

I'd never heard of a MIST (Micro in a Spruce Tree) before this post. Apparently the name is a Canadian phenomenon, though they exist elsewhere of course.

 

The first thing I thought of was Bernd das Brot, one of his favorite expressions is "Mist" (crap).

 

56875122.jpg

Link to comment

Sometimes, I really have to wonder. I was looking at a cache that was archived in 2005. In 2008, a micro was thrown down, 79 feet from where the missing small cache was hidden. It's been logged fifty-nine times since it was archived! The micro was replaced by another small. Guess it's still listed on one of those geocaching.XX sites. And still logged even though it was archived eleven years ago!

Link to comment

DRIVE BY CACHERS. Those people who are driving through a state and log caches that there is no way they could have found. You look at their date history and they were on the road for over 12 hours just going from point A to point B but then they log caches 3 or 4 hours off the road or that include a 5-7 hour hike to get to! In September a cacher that likes to brag about his many finds passed thru Utah "logging 450 finds" including a hike that took us 7 hours to do on a cache that typically gets visited once or twice a year.

 

Their log: "On a western journey with The Captain. We needed Utah, Idaho and Wyoming so we PQ'd the nearest to SLC and here we are. Signed log plus left a card in most." TOTAL BS cut and past log on about 15 epic hike-to caches!

 

That is my biggest pet peeve. If they want to drive-by log those throw down micro trash just off the freeway, FINE that is one thing; but to log epic caches as a drive-by........

Link to comment

I hate when I see GC.com when people mean Geocaching.com.

 

GC.com does NOT having anything to do with geocaching.

 

Agreed. Domain names or URLs for web sites should not uses abbreviations/acronyms. I saw this done a couple of days ago in a discussion about a couple of geocaching sites in other country. I tried using the URLs posted and neither worked until I replace "gc" with "geocaching"

Link to comment

Could be solved without too much effort. Autocorrect already changes plenty of stuff. Try "Mes sy Center" (remove space). ;)

 

I was able to figure out that the gc in the domain name, when corrected to "geocaching" went to a valid site. The point is, I shouldn't have to correct, or have a browser autocorrect it when the person that wrote "gc" could have typed out 8 more characters.

 

Link to comment

Could be solved without too much effort. Autocorrect already changes plenty of stuff. Try "Mes sy Center" (remove space). ;)

 

I was able to figure out that the gc in the domain name, when corrected to "geocaching" went to a valid site. The point is, I shouldn't have to correct, or have a browser autocorrect it when the person that wrote "gc" could have typed out 8 more characters.

 

gc.com leads to a valid site. Funny thing is, it's called "GameChanger". :D

Link to comment

I hate when I see GC.com when people mean Geocaching.com.

 

GC.com does NOT having anything to do with geocaching.

 

Not sure why, but i've always typed GC.com in my replies here in the forums. Never thought that would bother anyone but as NYPaddleCacher stated, it's easy for me to remedy.

 

I don't use abbreviations often but i do use the standard OP, OT, OTOH, and IMHOs at times. Guess i better start spelling those out too. Oh, and i do know that I, I've, and I'm are supposed to be capitalized. Hopefully that doesn't bother anyone too much. :lol:

Link to comment

I hate when I see GC.com when people mean Geocaching.com.

 

GC.com does NOT having anything to do with geocaching.

 

Not sure why, but i've always typed GC.com in my replies here in the forums. Never thought that would bother anyone but as NYPaddleCacher stated, it's easy for me to remedy.

 

I don't use abbreviations often but i do use the standard OP, OT, OTOH, and IMHOs at times. Guess i better start spelling those out too. Oh, and i do know that I, I've, and I'm are supposed to be capitalized. Hopefully that doesn't bother anyone too much. :lol:

 

I don't mind acronyms. If in a conversation you (the collective "you", not the singular "you") say "GC" this and "GC" that.... I have no issue. But when you say GC.com, on face value, it takes you to a website that has nothing to do with Geocaching. It has turned into misinformation.

 

Fortunately the forums here don't automatically hyperlink websites, yet. However there are many places that do automatically hyperlink. At that point, by human nature, people will just click on the hyperlink. You now have driven traffic to someplace not relating to what you are talking about. This can lead to confusion and frustration, especially for new people. In a worst case scenario, some nefarious entity has bought GC.com and has turned it into a virus laden website.

Edited by igator210
Link to comment

I hate when I see GC.com when people mean Geocaching.com.

 

GC.com does NOT having anything to do with geocaching.

 

Not sure why, but i've always typed GC.com in my replies here in the forums. Never thought that would bother anyone but as NYPaddleCacher stated, it's easy for me to remedy.

 

I don't use abbreviations often but i do use the standard OP, OT, OTOH, and IMHOs at times. Guess i better start spelling those out too. Oh, and i do know that I, I've, and I'm are supposed to be capitalized. Hopefully that doesn't bother anyone too much. :lol:

 

I don't mind acronyms. If in a conversation you (the collective "you", not the singular "you") say "GC" this and "GC" that.... I have no issue. But when you say GC.com, on face value, it takes you to a website that has nothing to do with Geocaching. It has turned into misinformation.

 

As a point of clarification, GC.com is used often enough in the forums that I think regular readers would translate it to geocaching.com. What I saw were two "gc" sites that were active in different countries (Hungary, Russia) Perhaps the short version was used because they might be deemed to be competing sites.

 

There are probably a few gc.* sites that will resolve to active domains and websites.

 

I remember quite a few year ago when I was working as a systems administrator getting a frantic call from someone that was building a web site that they were about to demo and thought it had been hacked because some of the links were going to adult web sites. It turned out the for some of the links to pages that they had not yet created they put "xxx" as a placeholder for the link. A browser they were using, when getting a 404 on the link, added ".com", ".org" until it resolved to a working URL and went to a page they weren't quite expecting.

 

 

Link to comment

I don't like automatic hyperlinks, especially when they become a picture and disrupt the flow of my sentence. That is one of the reasons that I don't type out the web address, and use an abbreviation instead. Or add extra spacing to avoid the behavior.

 

I'm in the same camp. Especially those that open up some text or a picture when i inadvertently move my pointer over them. Maybe not geocaching related but that stuff does irk me. I would certainly never type out gc.com in these forums if it was set up that way.

Link to comment

People hiding caches at graveyards on graves, even if it is family graves. The police do not like people that look as if they are tampering with graves.

 

People hiding caches in someones private property and the cachers oblige by actually entering (and sometimes damaging fences) and logging that they "felt like trespassing". Why don't you recommend archiving?

 

People hiding caches in a spot that has specific entry times and post the wrong times or fees on the cache description. Or the times have changed or fees went up and the CO does not update. (Especially when you drive 200 miles to find a cache and arrive in front of a closed gate 9 minutes past closing time whilst the owner posted a later closing time.)

 

How do reviewers approve some caches especially if the title or description explicitly mentions graves or graveyards.

Link to comment

How do reviewers approve some caches especially if the title or description explicitly mentions graves or graveyards.

 

It's legal in some States.

And presumably some countries. We have plenty of multis and puzzles in Australia that involve collecting data from historic gravestones (typically 19th and early 20th century) and one of my own, called Peat's Grave (GC4X42A) is close to a lone historic grave dated 1842, but not within the picket fence enclosing it.

Link to comment

How do reviewers approve some caches especially if the title or description explicitly mentions graves or graveyards.

 

It's legal in some States.

And presumably some countries. We have plenty of multis and puzzles in Australia that involve collecting data from historic gravestones (typically 19th and early 20th century) and one of my own, called Peat's Grave (GC4X42A) is close to a lone historic grave dated 1842, but not within the picket fence enclosing it.

 

Collecting data is different. I won't mind that, but hiding a cache inside the tombstones or the pottery or under the tombstones... it may be legal, but it certainly casts suspicion on you as a cacher. Especially if the hints are hard and one spends an hour to find a cache, poking and prodding at the graves. I am fascinated by graveyards and feel it would be ideal places for caches, but with the unspoken societal rules about their loved ones, I feel uncomfortable about it. There must be a reason why Groundspeak rules forbid it.

Link to comment

Around here we have a lot of caches in cemeteries, I've never seen a cache on (or even close to) a grave though. The caches are off in the scrub behind the cemetery generally. We like them, interesting spots, sometimes historic, and usually muggle free.....

 

I also like those caches. Especially near lone graves or historic ones. But here we have people hiding them in an on the graves itself. And I have no idea how they get past the reviewer. Unless they post a bunch of twaddle in the cache description and as soon as it is approved, they edit the description.

Link to comment

Around here we have a lot of caches in cemeteries, I've never seen a cache on (or even close to) a grave though. The caches are off in the scrub behind the cemetery generally. We like them, interesting spots, sometimes historic, and usually muggle free.....

 

I also like those caches. Especially near lone graves or historic ones. But here we have people hiding them in an on the graves itself. And I have no idea how they get past the reviewer. Unless they post a bunch of twaddle in the cache description and as soon as it is approved, they edit the description.

Sorry, I should've scrolled a bit further up the thread before I piped in. I thought you were objecting to any caches involving graveyards or that had the word "grave" in the title. I entirely agree that putting them inside or on graves is inappropriate.

Link to comment

Around here we have a lot of caches in cemeteries, I've never seen a cache on (or even close to) a grave though. The caches are off in the scrub behind the cemetery generally. We like them, interesting spots, sometimes historic, and usually muggle free.....

 

I also like those caches. Especially near lone graves or historic ones. But here we have people hiding them in an on the graves itself. And I have no idea how they get past the reviewer. Unless they post a bunch of twaddle in the cache description and as soon as it is approved, they edit the description.

 

Perhaps a note, which only the reviewer reads.

 

Distant relatives placed a cache in a Michigan cemetery, near the grave of one of the first US servicemen to die in Iraq. It's not the first or only cache in the cemetery. This cemetery is city owned an maintained (under parks department) so the city may be fine with this.

 

In decades past cemeteries were places where family would bring the kiddos and a picnic basket and lunch near the grave of a loved one.

 

Somewhere in more recent times we appear to have people thinking there's something ghoulish about this and cemeteries are places of dread, zombies, vampires, ghosts, you name it. Attitudes change with the times and possibly at different rates based upon the region.

Link to comment
I entirely agree that putting them inside or on graves is inappropriate.
I found one a while back in an active cemetery. The cache was left in compliance with the cemetery's policy on memorial items left by family members at grave sites. It was actually a very interesting cache, highlighting a bit of history that affected the deceased.
Link to comment

Around here we have a lot of caches in cemeteries, I've never seen a cache on (or even close to) a grave though. The caches are off in the scrub behind the cemetery generally. We like them, interesting spots, sometimes historic, and usually muggle free.....

 

I also like those caches. Especially near lone graves or historic ones. But here we have people hiding them in an on the graves itself. And I have no idea how they get past the reviewer. Unless they post a bunch of twaddle in the cache description and as soon as it is approved, they edit the description.

 

I don't think I have ever found a cache that was intentionally hidden on or at a grave, but I have come across one that was hidden very close to a child's grave with very poor coordinates that led to cachers interfering with toys and other objects left at the grave. The worst part is that the cache owner was absent, so the cache was unmaintained. A good cache owner would have noticed the first log about someone jamming a log book into a toy at a child's grave, and put a stop to it. Unfortunately, in this case, the CO never took action and a considerable amount of damage was done before anyone took action. When we went to look for it, we did not believe that someone would hide a cache that way, so we did a thorough review of the cache logs and confirmed that the cache was supposed to be in a tree nearby. I wrote a detailed NA log immediately. The cache owner never responded and the cache was archived. That incident stands as one of my most personally disappointing cache experiences in over a decade of caching. I still find it disturbing that anyone - never mind dozens of people - would trifle with a child's grave like that, and it makes me angry to think that the cache owner was ignoring emails alerting them to it for months.

Link to comment

...... cache owner was ignoring emails alerting them to it for months.

 

That's my next irk.... CO's ignoring emails/alerts on their caches. Especially on really new caches.... I mean, if you can't be responsive in the first week after publication, hang up your GPS.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

 

This is only going to become more common as word gets out that DNFs are triggering emails to cache owners.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

 

Same people that don't log NM, and I guessing they don't want to make anyone mad by logging a DNF either. Only the smileys count anyway. :D

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

Edited by TheAuthorityFigures
Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

 

If you're comparing DNFs to golf strokes, then, unfortunately, you're unfairly adding a negative and embarassing connotation to them. It's no wonder people don't log them, when this is the attitude.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

 

If you're comparing DNFs to golf strokes, then, unfortunately, you're unfairly adding a negative and embarassing connotation to them. It's no wonder people don't log them, when this is the attitude.

Embarrassing? No. You're missing my point. You either make the putt or you don't. You either find the cache or you don't. Either way, the attempt counts. It's the way the game is played. I've DNF'd many a cache, and I log every attempt. I'm not in the least bit embarrassed. It's simply communicating to the CO that I didn't find the cache.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

 

If you're comparing DNFs to golf strokes, then, unfortunately, you're unfairly adding a negative and embarassing connotation to them. It's no wonder people don't log them, when this is the attitude.

Embarrassing? No. You're missing my point. You either make the putt or you don't. You either find the cache or you don't. Either way, the attempt counts. It's the way the game is played. I've DNF'd many a cache, and I log every attempt. I'm not in the least bit embarrassed. It's simply communicating to the CO that I didn't find the cache.

 

It counts in what sense? In golf, isn't a missed stroke a point against you?

 

I'm all in favour of encouraging people to log DNFs for informational purposes, but this is a very poor analogy to use.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

 

If you're comparing DNFs to golf strokes, then, unfortunately, you're unfairly adding a negative and embarassing connotation to them. It's no wonder people don't log them, when this is the attitude.

Embarrassing? No. You're missing my point. You either make the putt or you don't. You either find the cache or you don't. Either way, the attempt counts. It's the way the game is played. I've DNF'd many a cache, and I log every attempt. I'm not in the least bit embarrassed. It's simply communicating to the CO that I didn't find the cache.

 

It counts in what sense? In golf, isn't a missed stroke a point against you?

 

I'm all in favour of encouraging people to log DNFs for informational purposes, but this is a very poor analogy to use in my opinion.

FIFY. In golf, it's a stroke against your score. I use the analogy only in the sense of fair and proper play, not in the sense of competition, which geocaching is of course not, In My Opinion. If Geocaching were a sanctioned sport, it would probably be subject to enforceable rules, one of which would be "Every attempt must be logged. Failure to properly log attempt will result in a one find penalty." :anitongue:
Link to comment

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things.

I think it's perfectly proper for a visitor to decide that nothing about the visit was worthy of anyone's attention.

 

It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

I have to admit, I have no idea why anyone would care about playing golf with someone that was inexact about their score unless they're playing for money. Personally, when I'm playing golf with someone I don't know, I never have any idea what they scored for themselves because I couldn't care less.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Meh. If they didn't think their first DNF was important, why should you?

Because I want to know as a cache owner if someone visited and what the outcome was. I pay attention so I can judge if it needs maintenance or not. And yes, I admit a bit of irritation because that's not the proper way to do things. It's like playing a round of golf with someone who doesn't count strokes properly because "they didn't think that one should count..."

 

If you're comparing DNFs to golf strokes, then, unfortunately, you're unfairly adding a negative and embarassing connotation to them. It's no wonder people don't log them, when this is the attitude.

Embarrassing? No. You're missing my point. You either make the putt or you don't. You either find the cache or you don't. Either way, the attempt counts. It's the way the game is played. I've DNF'd many a cache, and I log every attempt. I'm not in the least bit embarrassed. It's simply communicating to the CO that I didn't find the cache.

 

It counts in what sense? In golf, isn't a missed stroke a point against you?

 

I'm all in favour of encouraging people to log DNFs for informational purposes, but this is a very poor analogy to use in my opinion.

FIFY. In golf, it's a stroke against your score. I use the analogy only in the sense of fair and proper play, not in the sense of competition, which geocaching is of course not, In My Opinion. If Geocaching were a sanctioned sport, it would probably be subject to enforceable rules, one of which would be "Every attempt must be logged. Failure to properly log attempt will result in a one find penalty." :anitongue:

 

It's still a bad analogy. The cacher is the one who determines whether or not to write a DNF. There are very long threads - many of them - where people describe, in detail, what constitutes a legitimate "attempt." This differs widely from cacher to cacher, so it's not really possible to claim that it's "fair and proper" to log a DNF when there's no set definition, or even a semblance of a consensus.

 

To be clear, it's totally legitimate to be irked when someone doesn't log a DNF, or anything else for that matter.

 

But this flawed analogy is exactly the sort of attitude that makes people think they'll look bad for logging one in the first place, and is precisely the reason people are doing the think that irks you.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Personally I only log DNF's if I have good reason to believe the cache is missing (been a year since it was last found, construction in the area, high muggle traffic, etc). If the difficulty rating is fairly high and I've only had time to search for a few minutes before moving on and someone found it a few days ago, logic tells me it is still there, I just need to search again. So I don't bother posting a DNF. Now if I've been back 5 or 6 times still with no luck, then I'll log it on the off chance it is missing so the CO can confirm whether I just overlooked something or it is indeed missing.

 

If I logged every DNF I encountered, I'd have CO's out constantly shaking their heads at me because I missed the obvious lol.

Link to comment

Here's an irk from a cache owner...me. On a couple of my more difficult hides, a few finder's say in their log that it was their second time looking for the cache. Logic would demand their first log was a DNF. Nope. Never logged a DNF on their first time looking. What's up with that?? Irritating.

Personally I only log DNF's if I have good reason to believe the cache is missing (been a year since it was last found, construction in the area, high muggle traffic, etc). If the difficulty rating is fairly high and I've only had time to search for a few minutes before moving on and someone found it a few days ago, logic tells me it is still there, I just need to search again. So I don't bother posting a DNF. Now if I've been back 5 or 6 times still with no luck, then I'll log it on the off chance it is missing so the CO can confirm whether I just overlooked something or it is indeed missing.

 

If I logged every DNF I encountered, I'd have CO's out constantly shaking their heads at me because I missed the obvious lol.

To each his own, I guess. We all play the game how we want to and I find no fault with your philosophy. That works for you. For me, I stepped up to the plate and struck out. I will get another chance at the plate and there is no shame in that. This works for me. As a matter of fact, many times I've DNF'd a cache, it was much like a "tip of the cap" to the cache owner for their clever hide.

Link to comment

 

Personally I only log DNF's if I have good reason to believe the cache is missing (been a year since it was last found, construction in the area, high muggle traffic, etc). If the difficulty rating is fairly high and I've only had time to search for a few minutes before moving on and someone found it a few days ago, logic tells me it is still there, I just need to search again. So I don't bother posting a DNF. Now if I've been back 5 or 6 times still with no luck, then I'll log it on the off chance it is missing so the CO can confirm whether I just overlooked something or it is indeed missing.

 

If I logged every DNF I encountered, I'd have CO's out constantly shaking their heads at me because I missed the obvious lol.

 

I just take it how it is said - 'did not find'.... If we look and don't end up with the log book, we log a DNF, regardless of why (if there is a reason!). I would usually explain the circumstances behind the DNF in the log. If for some reason we went for the cache, but couldn't search, like muggles etc, I would post a 'write note'.

Link to comment

Personally I only log DNF's if I have good reason to believe the cache is missing (been a year since it was last found, construction in the area, high muggle traffic, etc). If the difficulty rating is fairly high and I've only had time to search for a few minutes before moving on and someone found it a few days ago, logic tells me it is still there, I just need to search again. So I don't bother posting a DNF. Now if I've been back 5 or 6 times still with no luck, then I'll log it on the off chance it is missing so the CO can confirm whether I just overlooked something or it is indeed missing.

 

If I logged every DNF I encountered, I'd have CO's out constantly shaking their heads at me because I missed the obvious lol.

 

I claim that I can trip over a 1/1 and not find it. I DNFed a cache with 3 terrain that was about twenty feet up a tree. I could see it. But being a senior dolphin and with the snow and ice on the ground, I was not about to try that climb. DNF doesn't mean that I think it's missing. It meand that I Did Not Find it!

If you searched and Did Not Find it, then you DNFed it. That's the definition?

I will admit that I seldom log more that one DNF on a cache. Boring for other cachers.

But, to reiterate: DNF means Did Not Find. Not: I think it's missing.

Link to comment

Personally I only log DNF's if I have good reason to believe the cache is missing (been a year since it was last found, construction in the area, high muggle traffic, etc). If the difficulty rating is fairly high and I've only had time to search for a few minutes before moving on and someone found it a few days ago, logic tells me it is still there, I just need to search again. So I don't bother posting a DNF. Now if I've been back 5 or 6 times still with no luck, then I'll log it on the off chance it is missing so the CO can confirm whether I just overlooked something or it is indeed missing.

 

If I logged every DNF I encountered, I'd have CO's out constantly shaking their heads at me because I missed the obvious lol.

Now I'm starting to understand why HQ are sending out "your cache might need maintenance" emails when someone logs a DNF.

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 50
×
×
  • Create New...