Should CO log that a cache is "back in play"?

[+TopShelfRob]

Not talking about when there are "Needs Maintenance" logs, but for instance just a string of DNFs.

 

I would assume if a cache wasn't being found and I (as a CO) were to check on it and replace it or fix it or rectify whatever it needed, I'd always post a note saying: "Replaced it, and it's good to go" just as a courtesy to let everyone it was back up and running or even "Checked on it, it's still here!" if it was a tough hide and people weren't finding it for whatever reason. With 'Needs Maintenance' logs, you'd have to put a 'Owner Maintenance' log just so everyone would know it was back in play, but with no "NM", a cache that isn't being found, if it was missing or is just well hidden, it's nice to know what's going on, especially if it starts to be found again.

 

There are a couple caches that I DNF a few months ago (and I wasn't the only one - I was in the middle of a string of six DNFs) that recently have begun to be found again, yet no note from the CO that it was ever replaced. When I DNF'd it, I looked as long as I felt necessary, either it wasn't there or it just was hid too well for me to find. I have no problem admitting defeat, that a cache "has me beat". And it's easy to assume that it either must have been missing or was just extremely well hid, since others couldn't find it then either, it wasn't just me. I don't feel a desire to go out of my way to look for it again, just assuming it was missing before and replaced without a CO note. I don't want to spend another hour looking again unless I know it's been replaced and it clearly wasn't there before.

 

If it was there all along and me (and the other DNFers) just couldn't find it, then obviously it is better hidden than my skill level can find and there's no need to search again. Not saying that I wouldn't give a quick try if I was in the area, but I'm not going to make a special trip. But if it truly was missing when we couldn't find it before, it'd be nice to see a note saying "it's fixed" and then I'll be glad to give it another shot.

 

Until then, I'd pretty much ignore it figuring that if I couldn't find it then after a thorough search, why should I expect any different now?

 

Seems like most COs would want to let people know they replaced a cache and it's ready to be found again.

[+WarNinjas]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

[+kunarion]

Seems like most COs would want to let people know they replaced a cache and it's ready to be found again.

I would make an Owner Maintenance log if I replaced a container, or (a note) if something notable about the cache changes, just like I do when replacing a cache log.

 

But with a long string of DNFs, as a cache owner if I go check and it's still there, I may or may not log anything. Same as if I passed the cache on a regular walk through the park on any given day. If someone emails me to ask if it's still there, I'll reply with hints if they want. Otherwise, if they didn't find it, they didn't find it. The difficulty is set correctly – you may have to try again. A whole list of people may have to try again, if they want to. The cache is hard to find. I even said so on the cache page. It's still there. I don't need to rub their noses in it.

 

OK, I have once or twice emailed a DNF'er who was new, and offered hints (again, I've already checked the cache, it's not gone). None of those cold-contacted Newbies have ever taken me up on the offer of additional hints, nor even gone back to find it after the hints I sent. The more experience cachers already know that a higher difficulty means a possible DNF. But if they don't, and when they log that "I'm pretty sure it's gone!", I still don't make a log about how not gone it is. The next finder's log does that for me.

 

I check and maintain my caches regardless of logs. It's not as if any of them are long gone without my knowledge. Many other COs wait for the NA logs before bothering to go check, so yeah, I can see the need in those cases. One local CO (after the Reviewer got involved) even “checked the cache and it's fine” after the area was obliterated by heavy equipment (that is, the container was in no way actually there anymore). So a CO log that it was checked (by a less than responsible CO) may or may not be useful. And that could be the kind of CO we're Opping about.

Edited October 3, 2014 by kunarion

[+SageTracey]

A cacher would need to have the cache on their watchlist to be notified of a CO's log, otherwise they would need to continually go back and check the listing for any updates.

 

I have appreciated some CO logs that say the CO has done a maintenance check and all is in order.

[+jellis]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

I may not get out there right away but do check mine and I will post OM even if it is still there. But what I have been seeing is some COs (mostly newbies) posting "Owner's Maintenance" instead of "Disabled". Cachers would assume it is back in play but what the CO is really saying is they will check on it.

[+jellis]

A cacher would need to have the cache on their watchlist to be notified of a CO's log, otherwise they would need to continually go back and check the listing for any updates.

 

I have appreciated some CO logs that say the CO has done a maintenance check and all is in order.

You can also have notifications on for changes in caches like "Enabled" "Disabled" "Write Note" and "Archived". Yes you will get more emails but I rather not be surprised while searching for a caches only to find them was disabled while I am driving there. And yes it has happened.

[+T.D.M.22]

A cacher would need to have the cache on their watchlist to be notified of a CO's log, otherwise they would need to continually go back and check the listing for any updates.

 

I have appreciated some CO logs that say the CO has done a maintenance check and all is in order.

 

It's not just for the past searchers-it's for future ones as well. Which would you choose to look for-a cache with a lot of DNF's or a cache with a lot of DNF's and an owner maintenance saying the cache has been replaced?

[+redsox_mark]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

 

Same for me. I think most owners do this. Certainly if they replaced a container.

[cezanne]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

 

If I just check one of my caches without any problems reported, I do not always post a note as sometimes it would give away something about the area in which my cache is hidden together with other caches I logged on that day.

 

Moreover, I use owner maintenance only if I replaced something, changed the description or checked the whole cache. If I just happened to visit the final, I typically just write a note if anything at all (if there have been no problem reports I do not think that a log is required and so I decide on a case to case basis).

[+Isonzo Karst]

There are a couple caches that I DNF a few months ago (and I wasn't the only one - I was in the middle of a string of six DNFs) that recently have begun to be found again, yet no note from the CO that it was ever replaced.

 

Possibly the owner made repairs, but didn't log that they did. Or someone found the cache in the wrong spot (far off coords, not per hint) and has put it back to a more findable state. A close reading of the first few Found it! log after the string of DNFs might reveal what happened. Or not.

 

Possibly, someone placed a throwdown so they could log the "find". And that's what's being found now.

 

"Should CO log"? I would, but I'm okay with somewhat obscure cache management too. Although in the current age of the ubiquitous throwdown cache, the obscure management technique ups the odds that a cache will be someone's replacement hide, not the cache owner's hide.

 

(It's gotten so bad that now i'm seeing people "find" ammo can caches with their own pill bottle hides, "at GZ I found an impression the size of an ammo can .... It would appear that it's been muggled recently, much to my disappointment. I checked my caching bag and happened to have a good container (though small)" - yep, throwdown that pill bottle, log that find....because hey, a DNF wouldn't increment find count.)

[+kunarion]

If I just check one of my caches without any problems reported, I do not always post a note as sometimes it would give away something about the area in which my cache is hidden together with other caches I logged on that day.

 

Moreover, I use owner maintenance only if I replaced something, changed the description or checked the whole cache. If I just happened to visit the final, I typically just write a note if anything at all (if there have been no problem reports I do not think that a log is required and so I decide on a case to case basis).

Maybe it also depends on what the log is about, such as “DNF, only the bottle cap remains”. A log on one of my caches was in fact a “Found” log about the “bottle cap”, and the cachers stuck a signed slip of paper into the bottle cap. So I made a clarification log that bottle caps are not the cache. And then I put some of the bottle caps from around the place, in spots that cachers are likely to search, as red herrings.

[cezanne]

If I just check one of my caches without any problems reported, I do not always post a note as sometimes it would give away something about the area in which my cache is hidden together with other caches I logged on that day.

 

Moreover, I use owner maintenance only if I replaced something, changed the description or checked the whole cache. If I just happened to visit the final, I typically just write a note if anything at all (if there have been no problem reports I do not think that a log is required and so I decide on a case to case basis).

Maybe it also depends on what the log is about, such as “DNF, only the bottle cap remains”. A log on one of my caches was in fact a “Found” log about the “bottle cap”, and the cachers stuck a signed slip of paper into the bottle cap. So I made a clarification log that bottle caps are not the cache. And then I put some of the bottle caps from around the place, in spots that cachers are likely to search, as red herrings.

 

If there were such a log on one of my caches, I would of course react with a log. I referred to situation when I happen to check a cache just based on my own motivation or because I happen to be nearby.

[+narcissa]

I think it's good practice to post an "Owner Maintenance" log for any visit, even if it's just a quick check.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Not talking about when there are "Needs Maintenance" logs, but for instance just a string of DNFs.

 

I would assume if a cache wasn't being found and I (as a CO) were to check on it and replace it or fix it or rectify whatever it needed, I'd always post a note saying: "Replaced it, and it's good to go" just as a courtesy to let everyone it was back up and running or even "Checked on it, it's still here!" if it was a tough hide and people weren't finding it for whatever reason. With 'Needs Maintenance' logs, you'd have to put a 'Owner Maintenance' log just so everyone would know it was back in play, but with no "NM", a cache that isn't being found, if it was missing or is just well hidden, it's nice to know what's going on, especially if it starts to be found again.

 

 

You've replaced the cache. Log Owners Maintenance.

 

Several DNF's so you check, Owners Maintenance - possibly just a Note.

Just passing, Note. (If it hasn't been Found in awhile and you haven't checked in awhile and look while passing, Owners Maintenance.

 

Owners Maintenance shows in the logs count, and shows you ARE maintaining the cache.

Notes can get lost in any other notes logged by other cachers.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Bear and Ragged

[cezanne]

Owners Maintenance shows in the logs count, and shows you ARE maintaining the cache.

Notes can get lost in any other notes logged by other cachers.

 

Cache owners should take care of their caches, but they do not have the duty to make it easy for

someone else to count have many visits they paid to a cache - caching is not a counting activity. If someone misses a note (not containing

something which effects the findability of the cache in which case a note is inappropriate), that's their fault and does not affect finding

the cache.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think it's good practice to post an "Owner Maintenance" log for any visit, even if it's just a quick check.

 

+1 , This is what I do....I either log that I've performed maint/replaced cache or I log the cache is alive and well.

[+NanCycle]

I think it's good practice to post an "Owner Maintenance" log for any visit, even if it's just a quick check.

 

+1 , This is what I do....I either log that I've performed maint/replaced cache or I log the cache is alive and well.

 

Agree. Posting the OM also makes it easy for me to determine which caches I have visited and checked on recently, or how long it has been since I did visit and check on one--just pull my list of OM logs.

[team tisri]

A cacher would need to have the cache on their watchlist to be notified of a CO's log, otherwise they would need to continually go back and check the listing for any updates.

 

I have appreciated some CO logs that say the CO has done a maintenance check and all is in order.

 

True, but any new visitors to the page could see a string of DNFs followed by a log from the owner (whether a Note or an Owner Maintenance) to say that they had checked it out and confirmed it was there/replaced it. At least then they would know the string of DNFs had been addressed and a visit wasn't likely to just add another one.

[+NeverSummer]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

This is what I do.

 

Also, if there is a string of DNFs, I treat it like a Need Maintenance log and go check, then post a OM log. It's just nice to help others, you know?

Edited October 3, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+DanOCan]

I log an owner maintenance log every time I check on a cache, even if it is just to say "Stopped in and everything is good."

[+J Grouchy]

I log an owner maintenance log every time I check on a cache, even if it is just to say "Stopped in and everything is good."

 

Well...I have one cache that is on the route I walk my dog almost daily. Every time I pass I glance over to see if it's still there. I will not post those visits.

[+kunarion]

I have one cache that is on the route I walk my dog almost daily. Every time I pass I glance over to see if it's still there. I will not post those visits.

+1

If the cache is there as always, it's not noteworthy. That's the expected cache condition.

[+coachstahly]

I always post an OM log when checking on a cache as none of mine are on my daily route, but still somewhat close to home. I used to check each 6 months but now only check when I think there's an issue due to DNFs or known construction in/near GZ or any of the stages of a multi.

[Pup Patrol]

We've been posting Owner Maintenance logs on our multicache on a regular basis. People around here apparently don't like to do multicaches, no matter how simple they are, so there aren't many "found it" logs posted.

 

A snippet from a recent "found it" log:

 

When I read the only 5 logs on my GPSr, 4 of them were maintenance notes from Pup Patrol, so that also prompted me to go for a multi as I knew it would be in good shape.

 

I certainly don't mind posting OM logs when we've checked on caches and found them to be in great shape.

 

 

B.

[kanchan]

Every time I check a cache or replace a missing one I post a owner maintenance. Even if there is not a NM listed on the cache. I still stopped by and maintained it. Not sure everyone else does the same though.

I also maintain my caches even if they are not missing. So I post Owner Maintenance logs in such cases too.

[4wheelin_fool]

I suppose the CO could also log a temporary "found it" log on their own cache, only to indicate for others that it has been found recently.

 

Logging as found to show that it is indeed there. Will delete this log when someone else finds it.

[+dprovan]

Yeah, it drives me crazy when there was obviously a problem and it obviously was fixed, but no OM to clarify.

 

I always log an OM if I check a cache and there's any question about it. I even logged an OM the time it was clear from the DNF log that it was just a newbie that didn't know what a nano was. If there are no recent DNFs, then I'll normally skip logging an OM unless it's been a while since anyone's logged anything about it since that, in itself, can raise questions.

 

For any cache that is infrequently logged, either because it's out of the way or because it's a rarely solved puzzle, I'll almost always log an OM since it's not as if an OM will clog up the logs or anything.

 

In general, I don't understand why CO don't routinely file OM logs. I think one reason is that some people have an attitude that you can only log an OM if you actually do some kind of maintenance. I consider checking it maintenance, but others don't for some reason. I'm actually kind of proud of my OMs because it makes it clear I'm keeping my eye on it.

[+TopShelfRob]

dprovan is going down the road I'm more interested in... I phrased the original question poorly, I am more interested not from the point of view of the CO (and what he should do), but more wondering as the cache hunter what do you do?

 

After a bunch of DNFs (including your own when you looked and looked and gave up), are you likely to spend time looking for it again if there hasn't been an update from the CO? Until I see a note from the CO saying it's been replaced/repaired or a owner maintenance log, I'm going to assume nothing has changed and not bother with looking for it again. If I couldn't find it in the first place, why should it be different now?

 

Unless I had an "A-ha!" idea about somewhere it might have been, but assuming I looked everywhere and was satisfied that I didn't find it, I'm waiting until I hear it's definitely there before I bother again. And also if the update lets me know that it was in fact missing when I looked the first time, but it is now there, then I'll give it another go. But if the update says "it's here and has been here all along", then I guess I just couldn't find it then, I probably still won't be able to find it now if it's in the same place.

Edited October 4, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[cezanne]

 

After a bunch of DNFs (including your own when you looked and looked and gave up), are you likely to spend time looking for it again if there hasn't been an update from the CO?

 

That depends a lot on the situation. I hardly ever however search that long for a cache. In particular in urban areas it can be that I give up and log a DNF after 1 minute of being there (not all spent with searching). If I happen to pass the area, it might well be that I look later for a cache again. Sometimes it also helps to take a look at the sat view at home after my first failure, or the GPS-r is more helpful next time or I might have detected a log that helped me or my mood might be better, less people might be around, better weather or whatever.

 

It can be very dangerous to conclude anything about the non-presence of a cache if it happens to receive 2-3 DNF logs in a row from cachers like myself. A lot of my DNFs are for caches where I'm convinced that they are still there and where this is proved later on by new finds.

 

Not everyone looks at every location conceivable for him/her before writing a DNF log.

[team tisri]

dprovan is going down the road I'm more interested in... I phrased the original question poorly, I am more interested not from the point of view of the CO (and what he should do), but more wondering as the cache hunter what do you do?

 

After a bunch of DNFs (including your own when you looked and looked and gave up), are you likely to spend time looking for it again if there hasn't been an update from the CO? Until I see a note from the CO saying it's been replaced/repaired or a owner maintenance log, I'm going to assume nothing has changed and not bother with looking for it again. If I couldn't find it in the first place, why should it be different now?

 

Unless I had an "A-ha!" idea about somewhere it might have been, but assuming I looked everywhere and was satisfied that I didn't find it, I'm waiting until I hear it's definitely there before I bother again. And also if the update lets me know that it was in fact missing when I looked the first time, but it is now there, then I'll give it another go. But if the update says "it's here and has been here all along", then I guess I just couldn't find it then, I probably still won't be able to find it now if it's in the same place.

 

I wouldn't expect a CO to go out and check on their cache if mine was the only DNF - it's always possible that the cache is there and I just couldn't find it.

 

If my DNF was the latest in a long line of them I'd log NM and ask the CO to check on it, and if they didn't do anything within 4-6 weeks I'd log NA on it.

 

If I DNF-ed a cache and nobody else had then I wouldn't worry if the CO hadn't been out to check it. If I happened to be passing that way again and had enjoyed the hunt I might stop back and have another go. If I saw the CO had made a maintenance visit in the meantime I'd regard it as a good thing.

 

For me, unless there are obvious problems with the cache then a CO making an owner maintenance visit is a good thing but not making a visit isn't a bad thing. So if the CO is responding to a few DNFs (or even one DNF) by going to check on the cache they might as well log to confirm it's still there as expected. If nothing else it's nice to know that it's worth a repeat visit because the problem was with my looking rather than the cache's presence.

[cezanne]

 

For me, unless there are obvious problems with the cache then a CO making an owner maintenance visit is a good thing

 

In case of many of my DNFs it isn't a good thing, but rather unncessary and I would feel bad if a CO felt prompted to go for a maintenance visit in those cases.

Edited October 4, 2014 by cezanne

[team tisri]

 

For me, unless there are obvious problems with the cache then a CO making an owner maintenance visit is a good thing

 

In case of many of my DNFs it isn't a good thing, but rather unncessary and I would feel bad if a CO felt prompted to go for a maintenance visit in those cases.

 

Why would you feel bad if the owner decided to go and check out a cache? How is it ever a bad thing if an owner checks on a cache because they are concerned it might have gone missing?

 

It's not as if anybody forced them to go. If they were going to check on it anyway, or thought it was a sufficiently easy hide that there should be no DNFs, or merely saw that someone with thousands of finds couldn't find it and wanted to make sure.

 

What's the problem with a cache owner making a free decision to go and do something?

[cezanne]

 

It's not as if anybody forced them to go. If they were going to check on it anyway, or thought it was a sufficiently easy hide that there should be no DNFs, or merely saw that someone with thousands of finds couldn't find it and wanted to make sure.

 

Threads like this and many others somehow create a subtle form of pressure for cache owners to go for a check. The same is true for the quite common belief that a DNF by someone with a lot of finds is more significant. I have DNF-ed many caches that the big majority of beginners find on their first attempt. They are typically so much more ambitious than me when it comes to searching.

 

Of course cache owners can check their caches as often as they wish. I do not like however statements like "How could someone not find this cache" or "A DNF by someone with 3000 finds is more signifcant than by someone with 20 finds" (this can be true in certain cases, but is necessarily true).

 

In my experience too many cachers assume that DNF means that one looked at every conceivable location and looked really carefully.

 

Cezanne

[+kunarion]

 

For me, unless there are obvious problems with the cache then a CO making an owner maintenance visit is a good thing

 

In case of many of my DNFs it isn't a good thing, but rather unncessary and I would feel bad if a CO felt prompted to go for a maintenance visit in those cases.

 

Why would you feel bad if the owner decided to go and check out a cache? How is it ever a bad thing if an owner checks on a cache because they are concerned it might have gone missing?

 

It's not as if anybody forced them to go. If they were going to check on it anyway, or thought it was a sufficiently easy hide that there should be no DNFs, or merely saw that someone with thousands of finds couldn't find it and wanted to make sure.

 

What's the problem with a cache owner making a free decision to go and do something?

 

It's not bad to know one's cache is in place and in great shape, it is bad to alarm the Cache Owner for no reason. I don't want them thinking the cache must be gone, and so they make a special trip to check on it, all because I can't find it. It's there, as always. The CO already went to the extra effort to place it in a spot that is maintenance-free. But in none of my four DNFs have I specified “...and I often can't find anything. I'm really, really bad at this”. The Cache Owner knows it's a super easy cache, nobody has ever logged a DNF until I did (and there are whole topics with really great rationalizations to NOT log DNF, and this topic where ones glance at a cache counts as an OM), because he's pretty sure it's gone. But it's fine.

 

It's also bad when the CO knows the cache is so easy that he has no choice but to log “Have you considered a different hobby? It's right there, dude. Dude.” But that's a whole other subject.

Edited October 4, 2014 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

We've been posting Owner Maintenance logs on our multicache on a regular basis. People around here apparently don't like to do multicaches, no matter how simple they are, so there aren't many "found it" logs posted.

 

A snippet from a recent "found it" log:

 

When I read the only 5 logs on my GPSr, 4 of them were maintenance notes from Pup Patrol, so that also prompted me to go for a multi as I knew it would be in good shape.

 

I certainly don't mind posting OM logs when we've checked on caches and found them to be in great shape.

 

 

B.

Kind of like advertising the cache is available? That's cool. I have one high-maintenance Multi (starts with two Chirps) and intend to test it and post OMs on some schedule, when I get around to it.

 

Until your post, I was seriously beginning to wonder if all these people who regularly post OM logs actually do, and was preparing to call people on it. I've never seen regular OM posts. Never. The lack of OMs must be a special issue with this region only.

[cezanne]

But in none of my four DNFs

 

I have more than 200 DNF logs even though I sometimes forgot to log one or chose to write a note in some cases.

The proportion of cases where there really was no cache to find is for sure below 1/3.

 

Without asking for help in a number of cases (for example after a long hike) I guess I would end up with at least 400 DNF logs and most of them for caches where everything was ok.

Edited October 4, 2014 by cezanne

[+TopShelfRob]

 

It's not as if anybody forced them to go. If they were going to check on it anyway, or thought it was a sufficiently easy hide that there should be no DNFs, or merely saw that someone with thousands of finds couldn't find it and wanted to make sure.

 

Threads like this and many others somehow create a subtle form of pressure for cache owners to go for a check. The same is true for the quite common belief that a DNF by someone with a lot of finds is more significant. I have DNF-ed many caches that the big majority of beginners find on their first attempt. They are typically so much more ambitious than me when it comes to searching.

 

Of course cache owners can check their caches as often as they wish. I do not like however statements like "How could someone not find this cache" or "A DNF by someone with 3000 finds is more signifcant than by someone with 20 finds" (this can be true in certain cases, but is necessarily true).

 

In my experience too many cachers assume that DNF means that one looked at every conceivable location and looked really carefully.

 

Cezanne

 

I just hope it is a subtle form of pressure not for them to necessarily have to check on it, but rather that if they do to let people know what's going on. Only the CO knows how tough his cache is, and how concerned he should be over a certain level of DNF activity. And finders don't know (other than by the difficulty rating) how hard a cache should be to find. If a cache has been found 50+ times in a row and all of a sudden gets 8 DNFs in a row, I would expect a responsible cache owner would want to check on it, just to see what's going on, especially if he's close by. If he's on the other side of the state, or if he owns 500 caches and doesn't have time to keep up with it, maybe he owns too many caches to properly maintain them.

 

A cache, however, that is very difficult and gets more DNFs than finds (or has not been found yet), I certainly wouldn't expect the CO to respond to every DNF, and I could see annoyances with people assuming it's not there posting unwarranted 'NM' just because they couldn't find it. I would expect that a CO who owns a very difficult cache that is a clever hide would know the best way to respond to repeated DNFs and after awhile would know not he's not going to run out there every time it's DNF, while at the same time he is going to stay on top of it and makes sure it's there, otherwise it's probably going to be very frustrating both for him and potential finders if it goes missing for awhile and the CO isn't aware of it.

 

My only point here is if a CO does repair a cache that was missing, but doesn't mention it, he shouldn't expect would-be finders who DNFd it to bother searching again until he leaves a note/owner maintenance log letting us know it is back in play.

[+sholomar]

There are people (not myself) who will put NM requests on caches with a string of dnfs without going to check the location again themselves and if nothing is done put in a corresponding NA request as little as 2 weeks later. I dont want to name names but for this reason especially out in a rural area where I am where there might be finds every 6 months if the cache is in an out of the way location, I would post when doing maintenance or write a note the cache is still there. Thats one reason I keep most of mine easy to find... if they are super hard its more a hassle having more nm requests.

 

If I happened to not log in for a few months I dont want archived caches. I saved one a couple months back from being archived by finding it..

Edited October 4, 2014 by sholomar

[+kunarion]

But in none of my four DNFs

 

I have more than 200 DNF logs even though I sometimes forgot to log one or chose to write a note in some cases.

The proportion of cases where there really was no cache to find is for sure below 1/3.

 

Without asking for help in a number of cases (for example after a long hike) I guess I would end up with at least 400 DNF logs and most of them for caches where everything was ok.

I mean four DNFs in a row on just that one cache. Not my career DNFs in total, which are way over 200 in 5 years. I've since decided that if I have no new search plans, I conduct no new search. Unless I have an epiphany (OK maybe if it's right there in a place I'm visiting anyway), I don't return to a DNF cache. All those "regular OMs" are not enough for me. I already know it's there.

[cezanne]

If a cache has been found 50+ times in a row and all of a sudden gets 8 DNFs in a row, I would expect a responsible cache owner would want to check on it,

 

If the eight people came in a single group not necessarily.

 

A cache, however, that is very difficult and gets more DNFs than finds (or has not been found yet), I certainly wouldn't expect the CO to respond to every DNF,

 

I guess noone would expect that. I happen to end up with DNFs however quite often for easy caches and as I said I often stop searching very early onwards. I've a serious issue with the idea that a DNF for an easy cache by someone with 1000+ finds is always significant and should alert the owner.

 

Cezanne

[+kunarion]

Thats one reason I keep most of mine easy to find... if they are super hard its more a hassle having more nm requests.

I try to do that, too; make caches that cachers can find. Yet that muggles won't. There's a balance.

 

Actually, most of mine are the kind I can't find, so I thought they were tough. But they're not. So if there's a DNF by a seasoned cacher, it may be worth investigating. But I don't have to guess about my cache condition anyway, I keep an eye on them, logs or not.

[+kunarion]

If a cache has been found 50+ times in a row and all of a sudden gets 8 DNFs in a row, I would expect a responsible cache owner would want to check on it,

 

If the eight people came in a single group not necessarily.

I've seen some caches where there's a wild psychological phenomenon of a couple DNFs causing more. It would be almost a shame at that point as a CO to go log "went to check and it's still there". On mine, it's not hard to tell it's still there. I keep my caches in great shape, so one may suspect it's gone all they want. But unless I've specified it's gone, it is there even without OMs.

[4wheelin_fool]

If a cache has been found 50+ times in a row and all of a sudden gets 8 DNFs in a row, I would expect a responsible cache owner would want to check on it,

 

If the eight people came in a single group not necessarily.

I've seen some caches where there's a wild psychological phenomenon of a couple DNFs causing more. It would be almost a shame at that point as a CO to go log "went to check and it's still there". On mine, it's not hard to tell it's still there. I keep my caches in great shape, so one may suspect it's gone all they want. But unless I've specified it's gone, it is there even without OMs.

 

It happens all of the time. One DNF tends to snowball until an entire string appears and convinces people sitting at home that it's missing, until someone finds it. The subtle power of suggestion at work. Most of the time it's a needle in a haystack type of hide, or the hint is misinterpreted, or the CO changes things up a little and messes up the PAF hotline.

[team tisri]

 

For me, unless there are obvious problems with the cache then a CO making an owner maintenance visit is a good thing

 

In case of many of my DNFs it isn't a good thing, but rather unncessary and I would feel bad if a CO felt prompted to go for a maintenance visit in those cases.

 

Why would you feel bad if the owner decided to go and check out a cache? How is it ever a bad thing if an owner checks on a cache because they are concerned it might have gone missing?

 

It's not as if anybody forced them to go. If they were going to check on it anyway, or thought it was a sufficiently easy hide that there should be no DNFs, or merely saw that someone with thousands of finds couldn't find it and wanted to make sure.

 

What's the problem with a cache owner making a free decision to go and do something?

 

It's not bad to know one's cache is in place and in great shape, it is bad to alarm the Cache Owner for no reason. I don't want them thinking the cache must be gone, and so they make a special trip to check on it, all because I can't find it. It's there, as always. The CO already went to the extra effort to place it in a spot that is maintenance-free. But in none of my four DNFs have I specified “...and I often can't find anything. I'm really, really bad at this”. The Cache Owner knows it's a super easy cache, nobody has ever logged a DNF until I did (and there are whole topics with really great rationalizations to NOT log DNF, and this topic where ones glance at a cache counts as an OM), because he's pretty sure it's gone. But it's fine.

 

It's also bad when the CO knows the cache is so easy that he has no choice but to log “Have you considered a different hobby? It's right there, dude. Dude.” But that's a whole other subject.

 

So why is logging a DNF "alarming the cache owner for no reason"?

 

If a cache owner decides to check on their cache after a DNF that's for them to decide. Implications that a cache owner is somehow "alarmed" or "pressured" by a DNF are frankly ridiculous - if anything they create pressure to not log a DNF in case a delicate owner feels under pressure to check.

 

I'm sure a cache owner can decide for themselves whether a DNF means someone looked and couldn't find it, or that they need to go and check it out. And maybe they were passing that way anyway and figured they'd just swing by on their way through?

 

Bottom line, if you look for a cache and don't find it then log a DNF. The cache owner can make up their own mind what to do with the information that you couldn't find it. It isn't rocket science.

[team tisri]

If a cache has been found 50+ times in a row and all of a sudden gets 8 DNFs in a row, I would expect a responsible cache owner would want to check on it,

 

If the eight people came in a single group not necessarily.

 

So the cache owner can decide for themselves based on the text of the log.

 

If 8 DNFs appear all at once and say something like "out hunting with some friends, eight of us looked and couldn't find it but we only had a few minutes before we had to move on" that's very different to 8 DNFs appearing over the course of a month where many of them suggested the seeker had spent considerable time looking.

 

A cache, however, that is very difficult and gets more DNFs than finds (or has not been found yet), I certainly wouldn't expect the CO to respond to every DNF,

 

I guess noone would expect that. I happen to end up with DNFs however quite often for easy caches and as I said I often stop searching very early onwards. I've a serious issue with the idea that a DNF for an easy cache by someone with 1000+ finds is always significant and should alert the owner.

 

Which is why I said it's best to let the cache owner decide for themselves when to go out and look. If they've had dozens of DNFs spanning several weeks with no finds I'd be ready to log NM against it. If they have one DNF after a string of finds there's no specific need for them to check but if they decide they want to, for whatever reason, then I say leave them to go and check. It's really no different to going to check on a cache that has no DNFs but a load of finds to see if it needs a new log book yet.

[4wheelin_fool]

Also sometimes the cache owner may quietly replace a hide without any notes if they suspect that someone stole it. I'm guilty of doing that.

[+TopShelfRob]

Also sometimes the cache owner may quietly replace a hide without any notes if they suspect that someone stole it. I'm guilty of doing that.

But how are people who DNFd it after it was stolen supposed to know that it is back?

[4wheelin_fool]

Also sometimes the cache owner may quietly replace a hide without any notes if they suspect that someone stole it. I'm guilty of doing that.

But how are people who DNFd it after it was stolen supposed to know that it is back?

Put a watch on it and wait for a find, or email the owner for a hint. The history of every cache is not always apparent from the online logs.

Edited October 4, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+J Grouchy]

Also sometimes the cache owner may quietly replace a hide without any notes if they suspect that someone stole it. I'm guilty of doing that.

But how are people who DNFd it after it was stolen supposed to know that it is back?

Put a watch on it and wait for a find, or email the owner for a hint. The history of every cache is not always apparent from the online logs.

 

...which was really the entire point of this thread...

[4wheelin_fool]

Also sometimes the cache owner may quietly replace a hide without any notes if they suspect that someone stole it. I'm guilty of doing that.

But how are people who DNFd it after it was stolen supposed to know that it is back?

Put a watch on it and wait for a find, or email the owner for a hint. The history of every cache is not always apparent from the online logs.

 

...which was really the entire point of this thread...

 

Well now you know. Casually armchair browsing logs can be deceptive.

 

A large percentage of thieves are lazy and have short attention spans. Simply breaking the chain of DNFs with finds without explanation may cause them to lose interest.

Edited October 4, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool