Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

 

Well, can you please be so kind and tell us a little more on what it depends. I understood that apparently if the cache is in an area where there are no (almost no) caches and where all the existing ones get hardly any finds, 1 DNF will in the normal case not suffice.

 

However, there are areas where there are many easy caches and a few that are very hard or very time consuming or require special things. Does a single DNF and few finds (which are normal for such caches) make such caches be the targets for being automatically disabled by a reviewer?

 

Part of the problem is that the DNF logs I write today might be used to make decisions in 2 years when the line as you put has moved further.

 

While the cachers have to live with Groundspeak's policies and how the reviewers act (and of course what reviewers like the reviewer mentioned in this thread are doing is time consuming and costs more effort than doing nothing), I'm sure that such actions do not encourage DNF logs, but rather discourage them.

 

Some of my DNF logs mean essentially nothing - it's just like noone has been at the cache in the meantime as I invest less time and effort than will be needed on average.

 

I provide you with a recent example

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4TX2N_bilder-cache?guid=2069f0f9-54ad-477d-8bfd-e12d933ede2e

This (quite easy) mystery cache went unfound for a long time. I then logged a DNF, but also explained to the hider (in an e-mail because he does not understand English well) that I often end up with DNFs for caches that are still there and that I do not think that it's necessary that he rushes out. The cache

is in a quite cache dense area with the other caches around having gotten much more finds. The cache owner checked the cache nevertheless and it was still there. As it was an urban hide and I told the hider that I do not regard a check as necessary, I do not feel that bad. If this had been a hiking cache involving an 8 hour hike and two 1 hour drives, I would feel extremely bad and I sincerely would have hoped that in such a case the cache owner waits for the next to try which could in some cases happen in 2 or more years.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Here is one in Oregon that got archived...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

I believe the cache is still there base on the DNF log.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is just wrong. Definitely shows that you should not DNF lonely caches since it is obvious the reviewer did not read the DNF. Looks like someone just running down an arbitrary list. So much for that "depends" we heard about earlier.

 

That should not have been a DNF log. If people reserve DNF logs for "I got to GZ, I searched and could not find it" and use "Write Note" logs for "I couldn't get to GZ" or "There were too many muggles so I couldn't search" or similar issues then this cache would still be alive today

 

Edit to put my reply outside the quote

Edited by Gill & Tony
Link to comment

Over the past year I've logged DNFs on quite a few high-terrain low-patronage caches where I've been able to see the cache but was unable to safely reach it due to my impaired sense of balance (Meniere's disease). For me, the experience of the hike was good enough, getting a smiley would have just been the icing on the cake.

 

Now I'm concerned those DNFs might lead to them being disabled, or even archived if the CO is unable to visit them quickly for whatever reason.

 

Is it now wrong to record a DNF in those circumstances? Should I go back and delete those logs?

Link to comment

 

This is just wrong. Definitely shows that you should not DNF lonely caches since it is obvious the reviewer did not read the DNF. Looks like someone just running down an arbitrary list. So much for that "depends" we heard about earlier.

 

Yes. It goes against all those threads where many have insisted you should log a DNF every time you press "go" on the GPS and don't find the cache - even if you never get anywhere near GZ.

 

Here is a cache with only 4 finds in 12 years. But someone logged a DNF who didn't reach GZ 5 years ago. That's a "double whammy". Not only is the last log now a DNF, but that DNF is likely to put off other finders (even though it shouldn't if they read it).

 

So it becomes a cache not found for X years, with last log=DNF... which seems to be the recipe for the reviewer to disable the cache.

 

I still think "it depends" is right though... as not all reviewers do this, or make the same judgements when doing it.

 

While this still seems over-zealous and unnecessary to me, I'm not overly worked up about it as the owner can save the cache by responding. If the reviewer would insist the owner check on a cache just because someone logged a DNF who didn't even reach the cache I'd have more of an issue with it.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

Here is one in Oregon that got archived...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

I believe the cache is still there base on the DNF log.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is just wrong. Definitely shows that you should not DNF lonely caches since it is obvious the reviewer did not read the DNF. Looks like someone just running down an arbitrary list. So much for that "depends" we heard about earlier.

 

This one is beyond wrong. My knickers are in a twist, and I demand this one be unarchived immediately. OK, that was just for Toz, but seriously, this is a "Wow, just Wow" moment, and that DNF was not read. Not unlike many cache pages are not read (blatant admissions of Vacation caches, Travel Bug prison language), but I digress. Well, at least this proves this is not a made up new policy of one guy from the east coast. :ph34r:

Link to comment

What CAUSED the archival process to be started? A DNF log (from a cacher who wasn't even at the location of the hide) that the reviewer took to mean that it might be missing. What gives the reviewer the discretion to disable a cache that's been found every time a cacher has made it to GZ? Both times it was DNFed, they didn't even make it to GZ to start looking.

If reviewers are going to be like this, then maybe we need to revisit the issue of when to post a DNF, especially on "lonely" caches. There have been threads on that topic and the "purists" say they post a DNF if they make any effort at all, regardless of whether they even get to ground zero. In the case of the Oregon cache, the DNF clearly states the cacher was on the wrong trail and ran out of time. Since posting a DNF risks closing remote caches, posting a note would have been the better choice.

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

In this specific case, what criteria did the decision depend on?

 

Keystone already commented on that specific case

 

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012.

 

 

I don't find the DNF "very unfavorable". The DNF says

 

Found GZ and a very likely spot that fit in with the hint. This one hasn't been logged in almost 2 1/2 years, and I afraid that time and the elements may have gotten the better of this one.

 

The first part of the DNF implies to me they were focussed on one spot, while other logs talk about looking in several places, on the other side of the river, etc. The statement about 2 1/2 years is simply a fact, the rest is speculation on the cacher's part.

Link to comment

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

A hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil is different than a hard to reach cache in New Jersey or The Netherlands. Reviewers are empowered with the discretion to know when to place maintenance request logs.

 

Someone who cares more could look at the linked New Jersey caches and provide statistics on how far away the nearest caches are, and how often those other caches have been found during the period where the linked caches had no finds. Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

The referenced Alaskan cache has been discussed at length in this thread.

 

The single DNF was written by a cacher with 17 finds and he dropped a throw-down replacement cache. A more experienced geocacher might recognize that many GPS devices in 2001 had an EPE significantly greater than newer units and the required search zone is much greater than the typical cacher would examine.

 

If I get up there next summer to hunt the cache, I plan to remove the throw-down (cachers shouldn't drop a new container unless they know for a fact where the original container was located) as geolitter, pitch a tent, and spend a day enjoying the area and doing a fairly expansive search. If the cache isn't found, all members of the party would log a DNF with details of the attempt to continue the legacy of this cache of interest. Removal of the throw-down cache would make it easier for the Reviewer to ultimately archive the cache because the concern over geolitter being left behind would be eliminated.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

I have a few caches placed out in the wild that are rarely visited. These are hidden to stay in place (good container, camoed, hidden well, and tethered) so i wouldn't even flinch if a i received a DNF on one of these. It would definitely annoy me if our reviewer disabled one of these because of a single DNF. I honestly cannot think of a good reason for a reviewer to take any action because of one DNF.

 

This being said, it's not the end of the world if it does happen. I'd take care of it by emailing our reviewer with details on why i felt it didn't need to be disabled and then i'd probably voice my opinion about this on the cache page as well. There would be some communication for sure!

Link to comment

Here is one in Oregon that got archived...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

I believe the cache is still there base on the DNF log.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is just wrong. Definitely shows that you should not DNF lonely caches since it is obvious the reviewer did not read the DNF. Looks like someone just running down an arbitrary list. So much for that "depends" we heard about earlier.

 

That should not have been a DNF log. If people reserve DNF logs for "I got to GZ, I searched and could not find it" and use "Write Note" logs for "I couldn't get to GZ" or "There were too many muggles so I couldn't search" or similar issues then this cache would still be alive today

 

Edit to put my reply outside the quote

 

Cachers should use DNF whenever they want their own records to indicate DNF.

Link to comment

Another one today bites the dust

http://coord.info/GCRYBA

 

It's a one mile hike which is why there are so few visits. The trend today is to avoid such hides, and with the new imaginary DNF policy, more will go. If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

Link to comment

 

NJ state parks have adopted a new policy with some pretty strict guidelines requiring routine maintenance of caches, and I for one like that aspect of the policy. It may ruin the "lonely cache" aspect of the game, but at least we'll have a pretty good idea whether a hide is worry of a visit.

 

Well, if NJ state parks have such a policy, fine, but this does not has implications on other areas.

 

Your statement reminds of me those cachers who want to enforce geocheckers for all puzzle caches as they want to have a guarantee to visit the correct place.

Those who want guarantees should neither visit lonely caches nor puzzles caches without geocheckers.

 

If the masses ignore caches without a guarantee, I do not care the slightest. Proper owner maintenance does not include providing guarantees. I sometimes visit my caches without logging a maintenance visit. I do not miss those visitors at my caches who only visit caches that get a visit every two weeks.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

 

Well, can you please be so kind and tell us a little more on what it depends.

I don't know that you'll get an answer from Keystone on that. It all depends on far too many variables, many of which are stored in the brain of the Reviewer who is handling each case. So there is no solid blanket to cover the dependency for a decision to be made by individual Reviewers about geocaches in general.

 

As other threads have shown, you'll be able to toss out a million examples where far-fetched and exhaustive examples will be used to prove your point. But the real crux of the issue here is that it depends.

 

DNFs, who DNFed the cache, when it was placed, by whom it was placed, where was it placed, has there been maintenance on the cache, have there been visitors to the cache of any type, is the owner active, does the owner respond, does the owner maintain their other caches, does the Reviewer generally deal with reported caches to clean geolitter, does the Reviewer prefer to let "old" caches be until there is a definitive issue where it is missing or derelict, can it be adopted,...on and on.

 

So, rather than trying to put your mind to zillions of examples where this would be an improper response, think of the myriad of reasons a Reviewer might have to proceed in this manner. Not your cache, not your problem. And don't get hung up on some weird anti-authoritarian ideas about why a Reviewer might be doing something you consider "improper". We all have our biases, and you and these examples of archival put those biases on opposite ends of the spectrum. The bottom line is, what happened isn't against the guidelines, and likely doesn't go against any code of ethics or common practices that Reviewers are asked to abide by; you've heard from a few people in this thread who are Reviewers, and they support that these cases aren't really that odd or out of order based on what they have been told to do in cases like this.

Link to comment

That should not have been a DNF log. If people reserve DNF logs for "I got to GZ, I searched and could not find it" and use "Write Note" logs for "I couldn't get to GZ" or "There were too many muggles so I couldn't search" or similar issues then this cache would still be alive today

I emphatically disagree. I'm against reviewers scanning for just DNFs to begin with since that takes responsibility away from the other cachers in the community, but if a reviewer's going to do automated scans for things that might possibly indicate a problem, then he's responsible for looking at what he finds before deciding it's an actual problem. The person logging the DNF should never worry about the possibility that the reviewer's going to disable on autopilot and then archive the cache a month later.

Link to comment

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

In this specific case, what criteria did the decision depend on?

 

Keystone already commented on that specific case

 

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012.

 

 

I don't find the DNF "very unfavorable". The DNF says

 

Found GZ and a very likely spot that fit in with the hint. This one hasn't been logged in almost 2 1/2 years, and I afraid that time and the elements may have gotten the better of this one.

 

The first part of the DNF implies to me they were focussed on one spot, while other logs talk about looking in several places, on the other side of the river, etc. The statement about 2 1/2 years is simply a fact, the rest is speculation on the cacher's part.

 

I'd like to know why the cache in Oregon was archived. Here it is again:

 

http://coord.info/GC8EDF

 

Depends on what? The reviewer not reading the logs?

Link to comment

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

In this specific case, what criteria did the decision depend on?

 

Keystone already commented on that specific case

 

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012.

 

 

I don't find the DNF "very unfavorable". The DNF says

 

Found GZ and a very likely spot that fit in with the hint. This one hasn't been logged in almost 2 1/2 years, and I afraid that time and the elements may have gotten the better of this one.

 

The first part of the DNF implies to me they were focussed on one spot, while other logs talk about looking in several places, on the other side of the river, etc. The statement about 2 1/2 years is simply a fact, the rest is speculation on the cacher's part.

 

I'd like to know why the cache in Oregon was archived. Here it is again:

 

http://coord.info/GC8EDF

 

Depends on what? The reviewer not reading the logs?

Could be the fact that it is on National Forest land, and some other factors we aren't aware of between the Reviewer's knowledge and the land manager?

 

Edit to add: The container and/or logbook protection was not in good shape, and the fact that the cache wasn't getting found or maintained enough to deal with the wet cache...and that the owner doesn't have a validated account to be able to see the logs which would call most active owners to attention when they'd see a "it's soaked" log, a DNF, or a Reviewer asking for more information.

 

This is an example of the need for validated email accounts, and for owners to be active in their role of maintaining their caches and listings. SMH...no big deal here (other than the fact that an "old" cache is no longer active, and a container might just be sitting out there as geolitter). Someone can still head out there to find it and confirm its existence, log a find, place a new cache (that will stick up to the elements), and maintain it well. Problem solved.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Not your cache, not your problem.

 

That's not true as one of my major concerns is about whether I should change my approach to writing DNF logs. I never write DNF logs for my own caches.

As I said before, I do not want that a DNF after 3 minutes of unmotivated search by me is used by a reviewer to force an owner of a cache where a cache visit involves 10 hours including the travel time to pay an unneeded visit to his/her cache. The best in such a setting is to wait for the next visitor regardless of how long this might take.

 

My intention to ask for more details on the "It depends" was to hear more about whether such DNF logs (if it's the only one) can lead to an automatic disablement of a cache. None of the reviewers so far told us whether the contents of the DNF log is taken into account or whether the mere existence of a DNF log as last log for a cache in an area where other caches have more visits already can lead to a disable step performed by a reviewer.

 

We also did not receive a reply whether reactions by the cache owner which explain why no cache check is needed are accepted to reenable the cache or whether cache checks are enforced.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Cachers should use DNF whenever they want their own records to indicate DNF.

 

Ok, but that's kind of subjective. A Note keeps the cacher's info straight and does not befuddle the CO, the reviewer or other seekers.

 

As I said in post 107, a DNF is given a certain interpretation by those other parties. In the case of the Oregon cache, the seeker clearly states in his DNF log that he/she did not get to GZ because of a wrong trail selection and lack of time. That type of DNF does not imply anything whatsoever about the condition of the cache - but someone who sees a DNF post and fails to read it could draw (and apparently has drawn!) an erroneous conclusion (i.e., that there is a problem with the cache).

Link to comment

Not your cache, not your problem.

 

That's not true as one of my major concerns is about whether I should change my approach to writing DNF logs. I never write DNF logs for my own caches.

As I said before, I do not want that a DNF after 3 minutes of unmotivated search by me is used by a reviewer to force an owner of a cache where a cache visit involves 10 hours including the travel time to pay an unneeded visit to his/her cache. The best in such a setting is to wait for the next visitor regardless of how long this might take.

 

My intention to ask for more details on the "It depends" was to hear more about whether such DNF logs (if it's the only one) can lead to an automatic disablement of a cache. None of the reviewers so far told us whether the contents of the DNF log is taken into account or whether the mere existence of a DNF log as last log for a cache in an area where other caches have more visits already can lead to a disable step performed by a reviewer.

 

We also did not receive a reply whether reactions by the cache owner which explain why no cache check is needed are accepted to reenable the cache or whether cache checks are enforced.

 

I'm wondering if this apparent "get tough on questionable caches" approach by reviewers is widespread, or whether these are isolated incidents. There is good reason to keep posting DNFs, but it does make one question where to use a Note and where to use a DNF in the case where one has for whatever reason not conducted a thorough search. If there's going to be unwarranted negative fallout from posting DNF, then people will be more unwilling to do so. Of course every DNF should be interpreted in light of the log that goes along with it, but I suspect that cachers and reviewers (!) may not always be doing that. There is a huge difference between a thorough search by an experienced cacher and a case where the cacher states in his log that he did not even reach GZ!

Link to comment

If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

 

Unless the reviewer(s) disabling the caches comments, we can't know for sure.

 

What it looks like to me is reviewers trying to pro-actively clean up caches they think may be missing/neglected. And they are doing this using a algorithm and/or tools which look for specific things. The examples all have a long time since it was last found, and a DNF log (with no found it logs after the DNF). And also some time has gone by since the DNF.

 

And I suspect that in the majority of cases this "algorithm" works. A LPC not found for 2 years with DNFs probably is missing.

 

The less accessible, seldom found caches get swept up in this. Which is unfortunate. But they can be saved if the owner is active and responds.

Link to comment

Used to be people were especially upset about the oldest caches (10+ years old) being archived but now it seems anything older than 5 years and anything rare (lonely caches) gets more people upset. Is this a direct result of the promotion of statistics, grid filling, and challenge caches?

Link to comment

Another one today bites the dust

http://coord.info/GCRYBA

 

It's a one mile hike which is why there are so few visits. The trend today is to avoid such hides, and with the new imaginary DNF policy, more will go. If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

 

Why aren't we getting p.o.'d at the owner Gypsee? She adopted the cache back in 2010 and hasn't posted to the cache page ever since. She's relatively active, last login was Oct 15 2014. Very unfortunate that she let it die. Looking at her list of cache hides, there are a lot of red wrenches.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Why aren't we getting p.o.'d at the owner Gypsee? She adopted the cache back in 2010 and hasn't posted to the cache page ever since. She's relatively active, last login was Oct 15 2014. Very unfortunate that she let it die. Looking at her list of cache hides, there are a lot of red wrenches.

 

See post 79. Link

 

It's because there no debate or question about the point of Archiving for non-responsiveness

 

There is debate about disabling caches which haven't been found much and have a single DNF.

Link to comment

Why aren't we getting p.o.'d at the owner Gypsee? She adopted the cache back in 2010 and hasn't posted to the cache page ever since. She's relatively active, last login was Oct 15 2014. Very unfortunate that she let it die. Looking at her list of cache hides, there are a lot of red wrenches.

 

See post 79. Link

 

It's because there no debate or question about the point of Archiving for non-responsiveness

 

There is debate about disabling caches which haven't been found much and have a single DNF.

 

In each of the cases provided, non-responsiveness was the aggravating factor. The single DNF was the catalyst.

Link to comment

Another one today bites the dust

http://coord.info/GCRYBA

 

It's a one mile hike which is why there are so few visits. The trend today is to avoid such hides, and with the new imaginary DNF policy, more will go. If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

 

Why aren't we getting p.o.'d at the owner Gypsee? She adopted the cache back in 2010 and hasn't posted to the cache page ever since. She's relatively active, last login was Oct 15 2014. Very unfortunate that she let it die. Looking at her list of cache hides, there are a lot of red wrenches.

 

The catalyst it triggered by someone sitting at a desk, versus the owner who is likely not willing to trek out there over a single DNF.

 

Suppose it is missing, the point should be that there are several DNFs posted before archiving. This will only encourage more people to post their DNFs rather than discourage it.

Link to comment

If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

 

Unless the reviewer(s) disabling the caches comments, we can't know for sure.

 

What it looks like to me is reviewers trying to pro-actively clean up caches they think may be missing/neglected. And they are doing this using a algorithm and/or tools which look for specific things. The examples all have a long time since it was last found, and a DNF log (with no found it logs after the DNF). And also some time has gone by since the DNF.

 

And I suspect that in the majority of cases this "algorithm" works. A LPC not found for 2 years with DNFs probably is missing.

 

The less accessible, seldom found caches get swept up in this. Which is unfortunate. But they can be saved if the owner is active and responds.

 

The reviewers are aware that often nobody will respond. Since they know this, you would think that they would take action only if necessary. Instead, it's a kick in the buttocks for losing interest.

Link to comment

Used to be people were especially upset about the oldest caches (10+ years old) being archived but now it seems anything older than 5 years and anything rare (lonely caches) gets more people upset. Is this a direct result of the promotion of statistics, grid filling, and challenge caches?

 

Could be. Especially for "resurrection caches" - caches that haven't been found in over a year.

Link to comment

Not your cache, not your problem.

 

That's not true as one of my major concerns is about whether I should change my approach to writing DNF logs. I never write DNF logs for my own caches.

As I said before, I do not want that a DNF after 3 minutes of unmotivated search by me is used by a reviewer to force an owner of a cache where a cache visit involves 10 hours including the travel time to pay an unneeded visit to his/her cache. The best in such a setting is to wait for the next visitor regardless of how long this might take.

 

My intention to ask for more details on the "It depends" was to hear more about whether such DNF logs (if it's the only one) can lead to an automatic disablement of a cache. None of the reviewers so far told us whether the contents of the DNF log is taken into account or whether the mere existence of a DNF log as last log for a cache in an area where other caches have more visits already can lead to a disable step performed by a reviewer.

 

We also did not receive a reply whether reactions by the cache owner which explain why no cache check is needed are accepted to reenable the cache or whether cache checks are enforced.

Here's some advice: Log your DNFs. Log them how you want, and how you like. If you didn't find a cache, then be descriptive--as much as possible--for the circumstances. More information=better information for the owner of the cache and the possible intervention by a Reviewer. Not too hard to do?

Link to comment

Used to be people were especially upset about the oldest caches (10+ years old) being archived but now it seems anything older than 5 years and anything rare (lonely caches) gets more people upset. Is this a direct result of the promotion of statistics, grid filling, and challenge caches?

 

In my case definitely not. It's just that many of those rarely visited caches in my country belong to the real pearls of geocaching in my opinion.

I would be very sad if a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCGC5Z_golden-lake

(only 21 finds since 2003, but 80% FP ratio despite the late introduction of FPs) died. For such caches it can well happen that for 2 years noone is even

making an attempt while many of the caches in the area which are shorter get more than 10 times as many finds in a much shorter time.

 

If the examples from NJ are nothing exceptional, but what we will soon have to expect to be the normal process everywhere, then I certainly have to change

my approach to writing DNF logs.

 

That's not at all an issue of owner non-responsiveness. It's an issue of that I find it completely inappropriate to send a cache owner out for a cache check

if someone like me who does not like searching gives up very early. Most of the cachers I know that have less than 100 finds are much more ambitious than I'm.

If someone deduces from my find count and the fact that I'm into geocaching since 2002 that a DNF from me has a high significance this is both awfully wrong and disturbing

at the same time. Actually, the longer I'm into geocaching, the shorter I'm willing to invest into searching for a container before calling it a day.

 

It worries me that sometimes it becomes apparent that reviewers act only upon the evidence of the log type and numbers like find counts and do not read the logs.

It should make a difference if someone did not reach GZ, reached GZ, but gave up after 2 minutes or searched very carefully for a long time.

Link to comment

I'll also add that sometimes a Reviewer archives a cache by mistake as s/he parses through thousands of caches in their territory. Most of the time, all it takes to have the cache unarchived is for the Cache Owner to send the Reviewer an e-mail that says something to the effect of "ooops, I missed your Reviewer Note/Disable Note, Whatever Note. I'm still interested in maintaining my cache and would appreciate having the cache unarchived." Unarchiving a cache is as easy as archiving it as long as the cache meets the current Guidelines.

 

Folks also shouldn't get carried away about some sort of automatic algorithm existing out there. It's pretty simple to load GSAK with pocket queries for a region and filter on the last time a cache has been found and whether the last one, two, or whatever number of logs were any combination of Did Not Find, Needs Maintenance or Needs Archiving.

 

As the writer of more than 750 DNF logs (about one out of every 11 of my hunts ends unsuccessfully), it's my opinion every cache attempt should be documented with a note, DNF, found it, etc. Doing so creates a history for the cache and keeps the Cache Owner, the Caching Community, and the Local Reviewer appraised of cache status and interest in the cache. It bothers me a good bit to be caching in an area, not find a cache, see that it hasn't been logged in any way during the past three to six months, yet every other cache in the area has had a lot of activity. If prior hunters had bothered to write a DNF log, perhaps the Cache Owner would have replaced the cache or the Local Reviewer would have intervened...but now I'm straying off topic. People not writing DNF logs to avoid Reviewer intervention are setting up their communities for a lot more unmitigated missing caches and wasted hunt time.

Link to comment

Not your cache, not your problem.

 

That's not true as one of my major concerns is about whether I should change my approach to writing DNF logs.<snip>

 

I'm wondering if this apparent "get tough on questionable caches" approach by reviewers is widespread, or whether these are isolated incidents. There is good reason to keep posting DNFs, but it does make one question where to use a Note and where to use a DNF in the case where one has for whatever reason not conducted a thorough search. If there's going to be unwarranted negative fallout from posting DNF, then people will be more unwilling to do so. Of course every DNF should be interpreted in light of the log that goes along with it, but I suspect that cachers and reviewers (!) may not always be doing that. There is a huge difference between a thorough search by an experienced cacher and a case where the cacher states in his log that he did not even reach GZ!

See, it depends.

 

At least for that OR cache, there were other reasons to consider, and many more beyond what we can see or know from our desk chairs. The user had not been active since 2006, and does not have a validated email. Their cache needed maintenance (although, no NM logged), and it is located on Federal property.

 

Used to be people were especially upset about the oldest caches (10+ years old) being archived but now it seems anything older than 5 years and anything rare (lonely caches) gets more people upset. Is this a direct result of the promotion of statistics, grid filling, and challenge caches?

Yes. I'll bet that the love of "old" caches is something that fuels much of the consternation about archival. The other bit is filled with "live and let live" mentality, which I can agree with to a point.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Here's some advice: Log your DNFs. Log them how you want, and how you like. If you didn't find a cache, then be descriptive--as much as possible--for the circumstances. More information=better information for the owner of the cache and the possible intervention by a Reviewer. Not too hard to do?

 

As long as we do not know whether the reviewers really read the logs, this is not a suggestion that makes me feel comfortable.

I experienced the case where a reviewer asked that a cache which can only be done where there is snow (a cross country skiiing cache) gets reenabled within the next weeks at a time when the winter was over. It became evident that he just has posted the same text to all caches in the area disabled for a certain period (and meeting some other criteria).

Link to comment

Here's some advice: Log your DNFs. Log them how you want, and how you like. If you didn't find a cache, then be descriptive--as much as possible--for the circumstances. More information=better information for the owner of the cache and the possible intervention by a Reviewer. Not too hard to do?

 

As long as we do not know whether the reviewers really read the logs, this is not a suggestion that makes me feel comfortable.

I experienced the case where a reviewer asked that a cache which can only be done where there is snow (a cross country skiiing cache) gets reenabled within the next weeks at a time when the winter was over. It became evident that he just has posted the same text to all caches in the area disabled for a certain period (and meeting some other criteria).

See Ladybug Kids' post above. There's the response I'd give to your concern.

Link to comment

People not writing DNF logs to avoid Reviewer intervention are setting up their communities for a lot more unmitigated missing caches and wasted hunt time.

 

I do not agree as by writing notes instead of DNF logs the same message would be there for those not taking automatic approaches.

I'm wondering whether I just simply should stop writing DNF logs of the type did not find and write notes instead that

can be recognized by any human as did not finds, but not by any computer based approach and even less by simple filtering for log types and

GSAK like queries.

 

Moreover, if I leave after 3 minutes of hunt, you can deduce absolutely nothing about whether you will waste your time when going for the cache.

Of course there are cases where I'm quite sure that the cache is missing, but many of my DNfs are based on me having not enough patience and motivation or me not

being able to reach the area where I should have searched for the cache.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Here's some advice: Log your DNFs. Log them how you want, and how you like. If you didn't find a cache, then be descriptive--as much as possible--for the circumstances. More information=better information for the owner of the cache and the possible intervention by a Reviewer. Not too hard to do?

 

As long as we do not know whether the reviewers really read the logs, this is not a suggestion that makes me feel comfortable.

I experienced the case where a reviewer asked that a cache which can only be done where there is snow (a cross country skiiing cache) gets reenabled within the next weeks at a time when the winter was over. It became evident that he just has posted the same text to all caches in the area disabled for a certain period (and meeting some other criteria).

See Ladybug Kids' post above. There's the response I'd give to your concern.

 

All these responses just tell us that caches can be fetched out of the archive, but that's not the issue I addressed.

 

I have said it quite early in this thread: If a reviewer disabled one of my caches on the basis of a single DNF, I would decide to visit my cache a last time, collect the container and archive the cache. I take care of my caches and either I decide after a DNF that an action is ncessary and then I act accordingly or I decide that for whatever reason no action is necessary. As soon in this process a reviewer intervenes in a manner that I do not agree with and see as an intervention into issues that regard only the cache owner, I lose my motivation to take further care of the involved caches or maybe even all caches (if a reasonable competitor existed, I would have migrated my caches already some years ago).

 

I know that the majority of cache owners who started in the first years has a similiar opinion than myself. Hardly anyone would be willing to somehow fight for a cache. It's the community that loses something, not the cache owner.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

That should not have been a DNF log. If people reserve DNF logs for "I got to GZ, I searched and could not find it" and use "Write Note" logs for "I couldn't get to GZ" or "There were too many muggles so I couldn't search" or similar issues then this cache would still be alive today

I emphatically disagree. I'm against reviewers scanning for just DNFs to begin with since that takes responsibility away from the other cachers in the community, but if a reviewer's going to do automated scans for things that might possibly indicate a problem, then he's responsible for looking at what he finds before deciding it's an actual problem. The person logging the DNF should never worry about the possibility that the reviewer's going to disable on autopilot and then archive the cache a month later.

 

I agree completely with everything you say here. My point was simply that if you don't look for something you cannot say you were unable to find it.

 

If someone posts a DNF when they took a wrong trail, ran out of time and didn't get within a half mile of GZ that is just illogical. I'm driving to Sydney in a few days. By that logic I should post DNF on all caches within a half mile of my route. I didn't stop the car and get out but, hey, I didn't find the cache. (I would add a smiley here but my tablet doesn't seem to let me)

 

When I am using GSAK to build a list of caches to hunt, I exclude those whose last few logs are DNF's. It would be nice if I knew that those were real "failure to find" logs, rather than "I didn't bother looking and the cache is still there probably" logs

Link to comment

Interesting topic. I am not going to share the GC but I have seen a cache with a reviewer note stating that 12 finds in 8 years makes it unpopular and maybe it should be archived. I love finding lonely caches!!!!!!

 

Not a reason to archive if the cache is in play and the owner maintains it. I would assume it is just hard to get to, and not unpopular if your statement is accurate. :anibad:

Link to comment

Most of the time, all it takes to have the cache unarchived is for the Cache Owner to send the Reviewer an e-mail that says something to the effect of "ooops, I missed your Reviewer Note/Disable Note, Whatever Note. I'm still interested in maintaining my cache and would appreciate having the cache unarchived." Unarchiving a cache is as easy as archiving it as long as the cache meets the current Guidelines.

Example hot off the presses.

 

I disabled this cache listing In October on my own initiative after seven straight DNF's and almost a year since the last find. (Not only are folks afraid to log DNF, they are also afraid to log "Needs Archived" and there are plenty of threads on that subject.) I was happy to step in and do what was needed. When the owner didn't respond, I archived the listing in November. I was somewhat surprised, as this owner is active and is a "good hider" in my book of naughty and nice. So, I was also happy to receive an email requesting that the cache be unarchived because the maintenance had been done -- finally, after archival.

Link to comment

All these responses just tell us that caches can be fetched out of the archive, but that's not the issue I addressed.

 

I have said it quite early in this thread: If a reviewer disabled one of my caches on the basis of a single DNF, I would decide to visit my cache a last time, collect the container and archive the cache. I take care of my caches and either I decide after a DNF that an action is ncessary and then I act accordingly or I decide that for whatever reason no action is necessary. As soon in this process a reviewer intervenes in a manner that I do not agree with and see as an intervention into issues that regard only the cache owner, I lose my motivation to take further care of the involved caches or maybe even all caches (if a reasonable competitor existed, I would have migrated my caches already some years ago).

 

I know that the majority of cache owners who started in the first years has a similiar opinion than myself. Hardly anyone would be willing to somehow fight for a cache. It's the community that loses something, not the cache owner.

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

Link to comment

 

Could be the fact that it is on National Forest land, and some other factors we aren't aware of between the Reviewer's knowledge and the land manager?

 

 

Then state that it's because of an existing or changed policy regarding the inability to use National Forest land for geocaching, not state that it might be missing and that's the reason why it's disabled. There's NO argument on this particular cache if that's the reason. Instead we see a notice that implies it might be missing.

 

The most recent example is yet again vague and questionable. "The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary." It appears to be in need of owner intervention after a DNF by a cacher with less than 100 finds? It's the ONLY DNF log of the 26 logs posted to the cache page. Why disable it? The reviewer has NO idea of what might be wrong, if anything. Even the way it's written admits as much - appears, whatever action.

 

Going through a list of caches in NJ sorted by the longest since found date, I'm seeing NM logs posted about a year ago (longer in some instances). The number isn't very large - 10 in the first five pages - but everything else is pretty much the same, except these all have NM attributes. The last found date is 2 years or longer for most of them, yet no action has been taken.

 

What about this one here? Last find 2 years and change, NM log posted 20 months ago. Is it only because it doesn't have a DNF as it's last log?

Link to comment

When I am using GSAK to build a list of caches to hunt, I exclude those whose last few logs are DNF's. It would be nice if I knew that those were real "failure to find" logs, rather than "I didn't bother looking and the cache is still there probably" logs

 

I do that too, but I read the logs of the DNFs, look at find count (and D/T finds) of the ones posting the DNF log, the D/T of the cache itself, and the previous find logs before determining whether or not to remove it from my database. I'm hoping that's what the reviewers are doing in these two most recent examples, but that appears not to be the case. I would have kept both of them on my database. It's usually a pretty quick decision, either way.

Link to comment

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

 

I told you what about 90% of the old timers (not only those who started up to 2004) in my country would do that have not yet given up.

In addition, there is certainly a cultural issue involved.

Link to comment

All these responses just tell us that caches can be fetched out of the archive, but that's not the issue I addressed.

 

I have said it quite early in this thread: If a reviewer disabled one of my caches on the basis of a single DNF, I would decide to visit my cache a last time, collect the container and archive the cache. I take care of my caches and either I decide after a DNF that an action is ncessary and then I act accordingly or I decide that for whatever reason no action is necessary. As soon in this process a reviewer intervenes in a manner that I do not agree with and see as an intervention into issues that regard only the cache owner, I lose my motivation to take further care of the involved caches or maybe even all caches (if a reasonable competitor existed, I would have migrated my caches already some years ago).

 

I know that the majority of cache owners who started in the first years has a similiar opinion than myself. Hardly anyone would be willing to somehow fight for a cache. It's the community that loses something, not the cache owner.

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

 

Hey...at least it's a response, which is all that is required to prevent the reviewer from archiving it. I say that only half-jokingly...

Link to comment

Interesting topic. I am not going to share the GC but I have seen a cache with a reviewer note stating that 12 finds in 8 years makes it unpopular and maybe it should be archived. I love finding lonely caches!!!!!!

 

That sounds like a reviewer agenda to promote easy hides and parking lot playing. :ph34r:

 

Really, how can such a hide really bother someone that much?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

Could be the fact that it is on National Forest land, and some other factors we aren't aware of between the Reviewer's knowledge and the land manager?

 

 

Then state that it's because of an existing or changed policy regarding the inability to use National Forest land for geocaching, not state that it might be missing and that's the reason why it's disabled. There's NO argument on this particular cache if that's the reason. Instead we see a notice that implies it might be missing.

I have no idea if that's part of the issue or not. If you have a problem with it, you can email GeoCrater and ask.

 

See the "canned response" context from Ladybug Kids: If the Reviewer uses GSAK to mass-post reminder emails, TD logs, or whatever, the language won't always be as precise as it could be. But when you're reviewing hundreds or thousands of caches a couple times a year, I can understand "cutting some corners" to log those caches a little quicker.

 

The bottom line is that an owner can post a note or contact the Reviewer to re-enable or keep a cache from being archived in the first place. That's not so hard, is it?

 

 

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

 

Hey...at least it's a response, which is all that is required to prevent the reviewer from archiving it. I say that only half-jokingly...

Right? All you'd have to do is post a note or email the Reviewer. It's as if cezanne and others assume there's some kind of motive behind these archivals or a Reviewer temporarily disabling a cache listing.

 

If your caches are all above board and in good order, the guidelines are on your side for the cache to stay enabled and/or for an appeal to go your way. I'm floored that there's this much overzealous emotion and reactionary conspiracy theorizing going on about this subject.

Link to comment

Right? All you'd have to do is post a note or email the Reviewer.

 

You seem to ignore that the reviewer notes ask for a cache check and that the caches are disabled.

If that happened to me, I would understand it as a message that I'm not taking care about my caches properly and that I need someone who tells me about it.

If I happen not to check a cache after a DNF, there is a reason and I do not need a reviewer acting in a cut and paste style not taking into account the specific situation.

 

I rather have a greater number of caches that might have issues than this kind of tidying that I never appreciated.

 

I have an aversion against mass treatment in every respect and some replies that cachers wrote to copy and paste reviewer logs in my country show me that I'm by far not the only one and that I'm rather among the less radical ones.

 

It's as if cezanne and others assume there's some kind of motive behind these archivals or a Reviewer temporarily disabling a cache listing.

 

Of course there is a motive behind this and many similar actions and also the practice of many cachers to filter out caches with a DNF as last log or the last find long ago (except

that they work on a challenge): it's the wish to have a kind of quasi guarantee to be successful and to make as many selections automatically as possible.

 

It becomes more and more common that cachers post NAs logs for temporarily disabled caches saying something like "Fix the cache or archive it so that it gets removed from the map" where often they prefer the second option and this becomes apparant.

Some years ago it would have been "I really would like to visit this cache. Are there plans to fix the cache?" or "I would like to hide a new cache in the area. Are you planning to fix your cache?" Now most cachers just care about the cache map. Finding a cache is as good as getting it archived - it is not any longer on the list of unfound caches. That in many cases of enforced archival the containers are not removed and lead to geolitter is hardly disturbing anyone. It's all just about the database and the cache map, virtual objects.

 

If your caches are all above board and in good order, the guidelines are on your side for the cache to stay enabled and/or for an appeal to go your way. I'm floored that there's this much overzealous emotion and reactionary conspiracy theorizing going on about this subject.

 

In any case it requires extra energy and why invest that? Of course emotion is involved, but not any conspiracy theories.

For my personal taste the whole approach of Groundspeak has always been too authoritarian and it gets worse.

 

There is a trend that caches should appeal to a larger group and not only to minorities - for challenge caches this has been made an explicit requirement, but I somehow feel that this is something that many cachers would wish that it were the case also for non challenge caches and the group of reviewers just reflects what can be viewed in the group of all cachers.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...