Jump to content

Stop automatically disabling DNFed caches


niraD

Recommended Posts

I guess I'm kind of seeing your point. For the 1 star D/F's, if there are a string of DNF's , it's a pretty good bet that it's missing. For the higher D/T Listings, the picture becomes less clear, and requires some subjective judgement to interpret the DNF's.

 

My take on the concerns raised, is that these difficult caches that might get caught up in the sweep, should also shoulder a higher level of responsibility from the CO to remain active and engaged to concerns posted on their Listings. If people hide these difficult caches and then just walk away from the game, I see no problem freeing up the area to active CO's.

Link to post

I don't have an issue with COs needing to remain active and engaged. I don't have an issue with archiving the listings for unmaintained caches. I don't have an issue with freeing up the location of an abandoned cache for an active CO.

 

The real question is about the meaning of a DNF log.

 

Does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it? (And perhaps the geocache is most likely there...staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again.)

 

Or does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it, and there is a problem that requires something else to be done in response.

Link to post

I don't have an issue with COs needing to remain active and engaged. I don't have an issue with archiving the listings for unmaintained caches. I don't have an issue with freeing up the location of an abandoned cache for an active CO.

 

The real question is about the meaning of a DNF log.

 

Does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it? (And perhaps the geocache is most likely there...staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again.)

 

Or does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it, and there is a problem that requires something else to be done in response.

I agree.

Just a little while ago, a brand-new cacher accused others of looting because he didn't find 'em.

Depending on ones log (maybe?) that simple, "I didn't find it" DNF now might mean "this cache has issues, I didn't find it" whether-or-not there's an NM added.

Weird...

Link to post

A DNF shouldn't mean more than Didn't find. A DNF I logged yesterday was probably my own fault. Not being sure about a found value at 1 WP we were not sure about the final location. When it started to rain we gave up without even checking the calculated coordinates. I don't see why a DNF like this would mean there's something wrong with the cache.

If GS starts acting on DNFs like this that will be the end of DNF logs for me (I'll post notes instead).

Link to post

Does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it? (And perhaps the geocache is most likely there...staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again.)

 

Or does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it, and there is a problem that requires something else to be done in response.

Clearly a malfunction in logic at gc.com. Your first choice is and always had been correct. You looked, and you did not find. If there was greater concern (e.g., a 1/1 that nobody is finding), then the smart thing to do, and common practice, is to log a NM along with the DNF in order to raise attention to the potential issue. Automated software and reviewers need to keep their mitts off unless/until it is raised to their attention by those actually hunting. That said, it would be nice if those hunting would be more proactive. DNF logs that say "Must have been swept away in the 100 year flood that came through here yesterday" really should be accompanied by an associated NM log. I write them in pairs fairly frequently.
Link to post

Honestly, I don't see what the uproar is about. So a string of DNFs triggers an email to the CO, saying there MIGHT be a problem with their cache, and they MIGHT want to check on it. If you're a CO that gets an email, and you think it's unwarranted, ignore it. It's even less work and less risk than someone posting a NM on the cache asking you to check on it.

 

I would expect that the action that MIGHT be taken (as per the email wording) refers more to long-time NM logs and such than to a few DNFs on a medium to high difficulty cache.

 

I applaud this initiative.

Link to post

Let's get back to the original point of the thread ... reviewers who have a string of DNFs brought to their attention and take action based upon that, sometimes regardless of the evident difficulty of the cache and experience of those raising the DNF flags.

Link to post

Let's get back to the original point of the thread ... reviewers who have a string of DNFs brought to their attention and take action based upon that, sometimes regardless of the evident difficulty of the cache and experience of those raising the DNF flags.

Can you define a "string of DNF's".

Link to post

Let's get back to the original point of the thread ... reviewers who have a string of DNFs brought to their attention and take action based upon that, sometimes regardless of the evident difficulty of the cache and experience of those raising the DNF flags.

Can you define a "string of DNF's".

No, because it seems to vary with the reviewer. In my area, I don't think the reviewer dings any cache due to a DNF string unless there's something more obviously amiss that is brought to his attention. Here, it's up to the finders to report their concerns if they have any.

 

In another region, I HAVE seen action taken by a reviewer on caches when a rookie cacher wrote a 'needs archived' note against a 4.0 cache that had a fairly long (8 or 9) string of DNFs. I'm guessing that there was a reason for the string of DNFs. This wasn't a 1.0. Could have been a simple mistake, but ... some reviewers seem to be a bit more 'active' when they see DNFs than others.

Link to post

Does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it? (And perhaps the geocache is most likely there...staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again.)

 

Or does a DNF mean that you looked for a geocache and couldn't find it, and there is a problem that requires something else to be done in response.

Clearly a malfunction in logic at gc.com. Your first choice is and always had been correct. You looked, and you did not find. If there was greater concern (e.g., a 1/1 that nobody is finding), then the smart thing to do, and common practice, is to log a NM along with the DNF in order to raise attention to the potential issue. Automated software and reviewers need to keep their mitts off unless/until it is raised to their attention by those actually hunting. That said, it would be nice if those hunting would be more proactive. DNF logs that say "Must have been swept away in the 100 year flood that came through here yesterday" really should be accompanied by an associated NM log. I write them in pairs fairly frequently.

 

The bolded part is the problem.

I expect that most of us have seen a long string of DNFs with no response at all in any form from the cache owner. And no one willing to post the NM.

 

I assume we all want a database full of caches that have active responsible owners and owners that maintains their listing and container. Where's the fun in a database full of abandoned caches.

 

I will continue to post DNFs. If a cache gets archived because of my one DNF so be it. I can only envision that happening because the cache owner is no longer playing and not responding to reviewer notes. Or they reply with, "I've moved away (or I planted that while on vacation) and can't go back to check on this cache and don't have anyone to adopt the cache out to."

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to post

I guess this one would be a classic example of a head scratcher >>> http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2XN1R_scuba-steve

 

Clearly, SOMEONE wasn't paying attention.

On the one hand, it doesn't appear that unresponsive CO's is of any particular concern, yet on the other hand folks would like to see emails validated on Profiles.

 

So how is that exactly going to work out for the CO in your example who apparently can't prevent his email from getting hacked, and doesn't appear to have the wherewithal to obtain a free email account so that he can at least communicate with his local Reviewer?

 

Ironically, your example is a good illustration of why we need the Message Center.

Link to post

I guess this one would be a classic example of a head scratcher >>> http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2XN1R_scuba-steve

 

Clearly, SOMEONE wasn't paying attention.

 

This one had a real sad end. Especially since it cannot be re published due to new NJ state land regulations. Would have liked to see it active at least until it had to be permitted or archived. Such a fun search that nobody will get to have ever again (of course unless they look up the archived listing and go find it....Because it's surely still there).

Link to post

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...
×
×
  • Create New...