Jump to content

Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?


Recommended Posts

 

It doesn't matter to my story why you didn't go there. The point is that you don't need to go there to know the cache is missing.

 

 

Perhaps the CO has been out of town for a week, gets home, sees the DNFs and runs out to replace the cache without filing an OM log because there's no NM flag to clear. Cache IS there but because I didn't actually visit, I don't know that.

 

Count me as one of those cachers who has to visit GZ before logging a NM if I feel it's warranted. I've DNFed my fair share of 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s to know that I"m not always going to find everything I look for and the only way I feel comfortable logging a NM or NA log is if I've actually been to GZ. I filed three NAs just this past week.

 

In your example, I agree it would probably need a NM log but I wouldn't log it unless I actually visited it to verify, at least to me, that it truly might be gone.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

I can't be 100% certain that the cache is missing if the cache owner hasn't commented on it.

You can never be 100% certain that the cache is missing. At some point, you become reasonably certain the cache is missing. If I can see that going to GZ will not increase my confidence, I file the NM without visiting.

 

The decision to skip a cache is not worthy of a log at all, let alone an NM.

I think my decision not to visit GZ is worth an NM if I realize that anyone else looking at that evidence will also skip the cache. I file the NM because I've done the analysis, so anyone looking at the cache after me doesn't need to repeat the work. Besides, if I don't file an NM, no one will.

 

I just don't know if a cache Needs Maintenance or not if I haven't looked for it. Without visiting the site, the data I have is far too limited for me to make a call one way or another. I'm not a reviewer, so scrutinizing listings and asking for maintenance on caches I haven't visited isn't part of the game for me.

Ah, I see, here's our difference. I don't think reviewers are magical. In fact, the reviewer will typically have even less information than I do. And the reviewer's not going to visit GZ, either. Furthermore, I've recognized the problem now and can kick off a reaction, but the reviewer might not notice for months. So it makes no sense for me to expect the reviewer to file the NM for me when I've already done the work and can file it right away.

Link to comment

Perhaps the CO has been out of town for a week, gets home, sees the DNFs and runs out to replace the cache without filing an OM log because there's no NM flag to clear. Cache IS there but because I didn't actually visit, I don't know that.

A CO suddenly fixing a problem has nothing to do with our case. After all, the exact same thing could happen even if I did visit GZ before filing my NM.

 

Furthermore, we're not talking about caches that have had a simple problem that the CO might notice in another week. When the problem is obvious from the logs, that's because the CO has been ignoring it for a while.

 

But more important than any of that, if it's clear that there's a problem from the logs, and the CO then recognizes the problem and fixes it, he should file an OM to tell anyone else that might also detect that problem that it's been fixed precisely to avoid someone else reaching the same conclusion. It doesn't matter whether the person taking the time to study and evaluate the evidence is me, who will post an NM, or narcissa, who will not.

 

Count me as one of those cachers who has to visit GZ before logging a NM if I feel it's warranted. I've DNFed my fair share of 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s to know that I"m not always going to find everything I look for and the only way I feel comfortable logging a NM or NA log is if I've actually been to GZ. I filed three NAs just this past week.

OK, let's focus on those NAs. So you're telling me you saw caches with obvious problems and NMs posted, and you went out of your way to visit them anyway? When you got there, did you search for a half hour to make sure you weren't overlooking something? Obviously I don't mind if you feel compelled to do that, but most people would consider it a waste of time. Problems logged, NM filed, CO's ignored the problem, there's really no longer anything at GZ relevant to the cache's problems.

 

I often make this case for NMs because it can be harder to see, but, to be honest, when it's time for an NA in this kind of long standing lost cache example, there's almost never any value in visiting GZ. At some point, the problem changes from "the cache is almost certainly not there" to "the cache is not being maintained", and after that it no longer matters whether there's still an elusive container somewhere near the posted coordinates.

 

In your example, I agree it would probably need a NM log but I wouldn't log it unless I actually visited it to verify, at least to me, that it truly might be gone.

If a cache is difficult, then visiting GZ to find a cache that has been DNFed many times can be fun and, once in a while, rewarding. But if the cache is trivial hide under a LPC, and multiple experienced cachers have DNFed it, it's gone. Me personally looking under that same LPC isn't going to tell me anything I don't already know.

 

And what's the absolute worst case? I was wrong! Oh, no! The CO will post an OM saying "still there" -- or, hopefully, more than that to explain why there isn't a problem even though it looked like there was -- and we all move on. Not a big deal.

Link to comment

I can't be 100% certain that the cache is missing if the cache owner hasn't commented on it.

You can never be 100% certain that the cache is missing. At some point, you become reasonably certain the cache is missing. If I can see that going to GZ will not increase my confidence, I file the NM without visiting.

 

The decision to skip a cache is not worthy of a log at all, let alone an NM.

I think my decision not to visit GZ is worth an NM if I realize that anyone else looking at that evidence will also skip the cache. I file the NM because I've done the analysis, so anyone looking at the cache after me doesn't need to repeat the work. Besides, if I don't file an NM, no one will.

 

I just don't know if a cache Needs Maintenance or not if I haven't looked for it. Without visiting the site, the data I have is far too limited for me to make a call one way or another. I'm not a reviewer, so scrutinizing listings and asking for maintenance on caches I haven't visited isn't part of the game for me.

Ah, I see, here's our difference. I don't think reviewers are magical. In fact, the reviewer will typically have even less information than I do. And the reviewer's not going to visit GZ, either. Furthermore, I've recognized the problem now and can kick off a reaction, but the reviewer might not notice for months. So it makes no sense for me to expect the reviewer to file the NM for me when I've already done the work and can file it right away.

 

I just don't scrutinize cache listings that closely, in most cases. As a geocache finder, my main concern is determining whether or not a cache is worth looking for in that moment. That usually takes no more than a quick glance. Once the decision is made, that's the end of my assessment of it.

 

I am not in any position to assume that another geocacher will make the same decision I do. My decision is based on the amount of time I have left in the day, the weather, the relative mood of the group, etc. A geocache I decide to skip one day may be worth looking for under better conditions. DNFs are just a small factor in the decision. My decision isn't remarkable, and has no relation to other people's decisions.

 

I understand that others spend more time scrutinizing cache listings for various reasons. People who are more selective will spend more time reading past logs and interpreting them. If those geocachers feel they are equipped to log an NM, that's cool.

 

I don't know where I claimed that reviewers are magical. If I didn't visit the GZ, then I don't have any more information than they do because we're reading the same cache page. I simply trust that a reviewer has the expertise to make a better judgment about a cache than I do, if we're starting from the same position. If I haven't visited the GZ, I have nothing to add.

 

Even in the cases where I have followed up with an NM after DNFing, it is often the case that the cache is still there. In some cases, the cache was comically obvious and there was just a string of bad luck leading to several DNFs. So I know that even my best judgment at the GZ is not anywhere close to being infallible. Add to that my own experience finding so-called "missing" caches, I just don't think it's a call I can make from the cache page alone, so I don't.

Link to comment

It doesn't matter whether the person taking the time to study and evaluate the evidence is me, who will post an NM, or narcissa, who will not.

 

This is actually where the difference is. I don't "study the evidence" on a cache I'm not visiting. It's just a difference in process, not a right or wrong thing.

 

Either I'm not deterred by recent DNFs, or I skip the cache because DNF+time+mood = no. There's no studying.

 

If I'm going to study a cache page, it's because the cache is off the beaten path, or it's a non-traditional that needs advance preparation. I might log an NM if a detailed analysis of the cache page raised a red flag for me, but that's an unusual situation. Under normal circumstances, I am not scrutinizing cache pages to a degree where I would feel I had enough data to log an NM. Most of the time, if there are DNFs on caches that required this level of advance prep, the decision is "heck, we're driving out that way anyway, no harm in a nice walk and a look."

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Besides, if I don't file an NM, no one will.

 

Yes. That's the problem. NMs don't get filed.

When we discuss NMs in the forums, most agree it's an important tool. Yet very few will actually implement it.

If the cache owner is active it should spur them on to have a look, especially a low D/T cache with a handful of DNFs in a row. If the cache owner is no longer playing then it will get the archival procedure started and remove an abandoned cache listing from the database.

Link to comment

I just don't scrutinize cache listings that closely, in most cases.

That's fine. I thought you were saying that when I scrutinized a cache listing, I shouldn't file an NM if I think it needs one unless I visit GZ.

 

This is actually where the difference is. I don't "study the evidence" on a cache I'm not visiting. It's just a difference in process, not a right or wrong thing.

I'm not sure how you decide whether to visit or not without looking at the cache listing, but that's beside the point. When I think there's a problem, I look closer because I want to help eliminate problem caches. I understand if someone else doesn't want to consider whether a cache has a problem as long as they don't complain that there are too many problem caches in their area.

Link to comment

I just don't scrutinize cache listings that closely, in most cases.

That's fine. I thought you were saying that when I scrutinized a cache listing, I shouldn't file an NM if I think it needs one unless I visit GZ.

 

This is actually where the difference is. I don't "study the evidence" on a cache I'm not visiting. It's just a difference in process, not a right or wrong thing.

I'm not sure how you decide whether to visit or not without looking at the cache listing, but that's beside the point. When I think there's a problem, I look closer because I want to help eliminate problem caches. I understand if someone else doesn't want to consider whether a cache has a problem as long as they don't complain that there are too many problem caches in their area.

 

No, I have no comment about someone else's personal process for choosing caches or logging NMs as long as they are sincere and not written to harass someone.

 

Typically we just load PQs for a given area into our GPSrs and hit the road. We look a bit closer if we are trying to decide what direction to go, but it's more a matter of picking what looks interesting based on cache type and description. Reading logs usually isn't a factor until we are at the GZ looking for hints, or if the cache looks hard to get to.

Link to comment

 

OK, let's focus on those NAs. So you're telling me you saw caches with obvious problems and NMs posted, and you went out of your way to visit them anyway? When you got there, did you search for a half hour to make sure you weren't overlooking something? Obviously I don't mind if you feel compelled to do that, but most people would consider it a waste of time. Problems logged, NM filed, CO's ignored the problem, there's really no longer anything at GZ relevant to the cache's problems.

 

I often make this case for NMs because it can be harder to see, but, to be honest, when it's time for an NA in this kind of long standing lost cache example, there's almost never any value in visiting GZ. At some point, the problem changes from "the cache is almost certainly not there" to "the cache is not being maintained", and after that it no longer matters whether there's still an elusive container somewhere near the posted coordinates.

 

There were no NM logs but these caches warranted a NA log right off the bat. Two hadn't been found in over a year. One of the two had private property signs placed on the access road so rather than run the risk of trespassing, I opted to take a picture, post it to the log, and file my NA. There was a note written saying that there were private property signs but for some reason it didn't load onto my GPS. I still would have gone to attempt it. Perhaps the DOT would have removed them as it appeared they would be the ones responsible for maintaining the dead end road. The other was one of those roadside crosses people put out to memorialize those who have died. The cross was gone, the hiding spot was gone but I still looked, flied my DNF and then filed the NA log because the reason for the cache was no longer in place, nor was the cache. The third was another roadside cache, supposedly found this summer but even that log said there was no cross nor cache. I visited GZ to verify and sure enough, there was nothing to find or see. NA filed after my DNF was logged.

 

Why wouldn't I visit caches with previous problems and NMs posted? I usually spend a good amount of time searching if I feel I might have overlooked something or just missed it. I'll file my NM log afterwards (if there are others there on the cache page already) and then revisit the cache page to file the NA if it appears there has been no action filed by the CO. If the cache is there, I'll post the find and the NM, restating the issues in my log and the NM log. I will NOT file a NA on that cache because although it has issues, it's still there and a viable, if crappy, cache.

 

YOU might find no value in visiting GZ of a cache that apparently isn't there, but I find the value to be one of conscience (for me). I want to verify that it truly might not be there, not make an assumption (perhaps even a correct one) on what I can't physically verify. I don't mind going to caches that have issues and don't find it a waste of my time. I log my DNF and any other action I deem necessary. That's the way I choose to play. It's not about finding everything for me. Occasionally my DNFs are just as great at creating memories as some of my finds are.

Link to comment

A DNF log doesn't mean the cache needs maintenance. It means someone couldn't find it.

 

I'll check on a DNF'ed cache of mine depending on a couple of factors:

1) How tough is the hide meant to be?

2) How experienced is the DNF-er?

 

If it's supposed to be a difficult find, I'll sit tight until there are a few DNF's by well-experienced players. If you've found 30 (for example), DNF a 3-4 Difficulty cache, and then holler that it's in need of help or not there, try again. I've got a 3D cache out there, whose hint is a spoiler. The 3D is due to the amount of muggle traffic around the hide. One cacher is pretty insistent that I give him more clues cuz he couldn't find it.

 

If it's a 1D, and there's just a couple of DNF's I'll go take a look.

 

We have a couple of Reviewers in my area that seem to think 2 or 3 DNF's mean the cache has major issues. So they just slap a disable on it, and give you 14-30 days to go "fix" it. They did that to one (not mine--belongs to a friend) that was a 5 D!! Of course it's hard to find. It's supposed to be! It has a Disable slapped on it after 2 DNF's.

 

A NM normally log means you found it, and it has severe issues. The trick here is you found it.

 

Although sometimes, a NM asking for a look-see gets posted. Especially if the cache hasn't been logged at all in many months.

Link to comment

A NM normally log means you found it, and it has severe issues. The trick here is you found it.

 

Although sometimes, a NM asking for a look-see gets posted. Especially if the cache hasn't been logged at all in many months.

To me, an NM is simply a request that something needs the CO's attention. It doesn't have to be a severe issue with the cache, it could be that it was sitting out in the open and the finder wasn't sure where it was meant to be hidden, something minor like a broken latch on the lid, something to do with the surroundings (a fallen tree or boulder blocking access, perhaps) or even that the cache page needs fixing because of changed circumstances (the recommended parking spot has been permanently closed, for example). I'd certainly appreciate getting an NM on my hides if someone thought it needed attention for any reason, even a wet or full logbook - a passing comment about such in the fourth or fifth paragraph of a Found It log is too easily overlooked.

Link to comment

We have a couple of Reviewers in my area that seem to think 2 or 3 DNF's mean the cache has major issues. So they just slap a disable on it, and give you 14-30 days to go "fix" it. They did that to one (not mine--belongs to a friend) that was a 5 D!! Of course it's hard to find. It's supposed to be! It has a Disable slapped on it after 2 DNF's.

 

A NM normally log means you found it, and it has severe issues. The trick here is you found it.

 

Although sometimes, a NM asking for a look-see gets posted. Especially if the cache hasn't been logged at all in many months.

If a cache goes missing and the CO doesn't do anything about it, someone has to post an NM and, obviously, that person won't have found the cache because it's missing. If your local culture says you must find a cache to post an NM, missing caches are never cleaned up naturally. Instead, reviewers have to step in and take action to try to identify missing caches from afar with their imperfect information. You've discovered the problem that causes. So the moral is to post the NM yourself and drop the troublesome idea that you have to have found a cache to post an NM.

Link to comment

We have a couple of Reviewers in my area that seem to think 2 or 3 DNF's mean the cache has major issues. So they just slap a disable on it, and give you 14-30 days to go "fix" it. They did that to one (not mine--belongs to a friend) that was a 5 D!! Of course it's hard to find. It's supposed to be! It has a Disable slapped on it after 2 DNF's.

 

A NM normally log means you found it, and it has severe issues. The trick here is you found it.

 

Although sometimes, a NM asking for a look-see gets posted. Especially if the cache hasn't been logged at all in many months.

If a cache goes missing and the CO doesn't do anything about it, someone has to post an NM and, obviously, that person won't have found the cache because it's missing. If your local culture says you must find a cache to post an NM, missing caches are never cleaned up naturally. Instead, reviewers have to step in and take action to try to identify missing caches from afar with their imperfect information. You've discovered the problem that causes. So the moral is to post the NM yourself and drop the troublesome idea that you have to have found a cache to post an NM.

 

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment since we were discussing NMs in general, not NMs exclusively on difficult caches, but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information. I've also DNFs difficult caches without that kind of red flag because, as I've explained before, no matter how hard a cache is, after a certain number of DNFs, people are going to start thinking it's missing, so the CO should go confirm it's there. In those cases, I'm not sure why the CO hasn't checked on it already, but when he hasn't, I need to nudge him. After all, if there's one thing more frustrating that spending an hour looking for a cache that's in place and not finding it, it's spending an hour looking for a cache that isn't there at all.

Link to comment

but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information.

 

For caches that move around (happens often) that's one of the worst kinds of evidence that a cache is gone. Very often in such cases the search is much less intense than it would be without a previous finder being present.

Link to comment

but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information.

 

For caches that move around (happens often) that's one of the worst kinds of evidence that a cache is gone. Very often in such cases the search is much less intense than it would be without a previous finder being present.

 

This is where the owner goes to out to find his cache. Maybe tie it down if it wanders a lot. Or provide more detailed information about where the cache is supposed to go when it's put back. And this is where an NM log may spur him on to go visit his cache.

Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment since we were discussing NMs in general, not NMs exclusively on difficult caches, but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information. I've also DNFs difficult caches without that kind of red flag because, as I've explained before, no matter how hard a cache is, after a certain number of DNFs, people are going to start thinking it's missing, so the CO should go confirm it's there. In those cases, I'm not sure why the CO hasn't checked on it already, but when he hasn't, I need to nudge him. After all, if there's one thing more frustrating that spending an hour looking for a cache that's in place and not finding it, it's spending an hour looking for a cache that isn't there at all.

 

In that specific circumstance, my first assumption would be that OtherCacher doesn't remember the hide or that the hide has changed since OtherCacher found it. I'd post a detailed DNF explaining the situation, and then follow my usual process. Eventually I'd post an NM if the DNFs pile up with no action, but not right away. Claiming that the cache is definitely missing is a surefire way to make sure the next searcher spots it immediately and makes me look like a buffoon.

 

There are some caches that get DNFed often because they're difficult. With a cache like that, several DNFs don't make me think the cache might be missing, they merely confirm that the cache is difficult. Why should I post an NM on a cache like that?

Link to comment

but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information.

 

For caches that move around (happens often) that's one of the worst kinds of evidence that a cache is gone. Very often in such cases the search is much less intense than it would be without a previous finder being present.

 

This is where the owner goes to out to find his cache. Maybe tie it down if it wanders a lot. Or provide more detailed information about where the cache is supposed to go when it's put back. And this is where an NM log may spur him on to go visit his cache.

 

Or maybe the cache owner decides to wait it out a bit longer, based on the history of the cache and the relative trustworthiness of the people logging DNFs.

Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

 

You're helping to discourage the use of NM.

As cache owners we agree to:

4.9. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

 

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

 

  • Choose an appropriate
    that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as
    if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete
    .
  • if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to
.

 

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and
.

 

If the owner of a difficult cache gets an NM after a string of DNFs, so be it. They can respond by posting an OM. More likely the scenario is an abandoned cache with a string of DNFs and an unresponsive owner who doesn't play anymore, or feels his responsibility for the cache ended after he posted the listing. The NM will at least set the archival process in place and send the message out that it's not OK to abandon your cache and listing, no matter what the D/T rating.

Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment since we were discussing NMs in general, not NMs exclusively on difficult caches, but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information. I've also DNFs difficult caches without that kind of red flag because, as I've explained before, no matter how hard a cache is, after a certain number of DNFs, people are going to start thinking it's missing, so the CO should go confirm it's there. In those cases, I'm not sure why the CO hasn't checked on it already, but when he hasn't, I need to nudge him. After all, if there's one thing more frustrating that spending an hour looking for a cache that's in place and not finding it, it's spending an hour looking for a cache that isn't there at all.

 

In that specific circumstance, my first assumption would be that OtherCacher doesn't remember the hide or that the hide has changed since OtherCacher found it. I'd post a detailed DNF explaining the situation, and then follow my usual process. Eventually I'd post an NM if the DNFs pile up with no action, but not right away. Claiming that the cache is definitely missing is a surefire way to make sure the next searcher spots it immediately and makes me look like a buffoon.

 

There are some caches that get DNFed often because they're difficult. With a cache like that, several DNFs don't make me think the cache might be missing, they merely confirm that the cache is difficult. Why should I post an NM on a cache like that?

 

A high D cache, you probably shouldn't post an NM if there is no other evidence that the cache might be missing. But if there is a good possibility based on several DNFs in a row, what is written in the DNF logs, and no response from the owner, what they heck, post the NM. The cache owner may need to come have a look. They agreed to maintenance, posting high D rated caches doesn't decrease the amount of checking required, sometimes it increases it.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information.

 

For caches that move around (happens often) that's one of the worst kinds of evidence that a cache is gone. Very often in such cases the search is much less intense than it would be without a previous finder being present.

 

This is where the owner goes to out to find his cache. Maybe tie it down if it wanders a lot. Or provide more detailed information about where the cache is supposed to go when it's put back. And this is where an NM log may spur him on to go visit his cache.

 

Or maybe the cache owner decides to wait it out a bit longer, based on the history of the cache and the relative trustworthiness of the people logging DNFs.

 

They can do that. It's easy to post a note saying they'll ride it out until the next DNF. I doubt a reviewer would do anything until maybe a couple of months after the next DNF and probably only if someone else posts an NM.

Link to comment

but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information.

 

For caches that move around (happens often) that's one of the worst kinds of evidence that a cache is gone. Very often in such cases the search is much less intense than it would be without a previous finder being present.

 

This is where the owner goes to out to find his cache. Maybe tie it down if it wanders a lot. Or provide more detailed information about where the cache is supposed to go when it's put back. And this is where an NM log may spur him on to go visit his cache.

 

No, I do not agree with such a general statement. Often there is no need that the cache is exactly the same place - of course the coordinates and the hint (if available) should still apply. It's a different story that sometimes the cache owner has to look for his/her own cache and might not enjoy that - in that case the owner might want to react.

There is no need however that a previous finder knows the exact location of a cache. I even know cases where e.g. the cache owner changes the code for the lock of a cache regularly such that cachers who just get the code from a previous finder will fail.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

 

You're helping to discourage the use of NM.

As cache owners we agree to:

4.9. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

 

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

 

  • Choose an appropriate
    that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as
    if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete
    .
  • if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to
.

 

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and
.

 

If the owner of a difficult cache gets an NM after a string of DNFs, so be it. They can respond by posting an OM. More likely the scenario is an abandoned cache with a string of DNFs and an unresponsive owner who doesn't play anymore, or feels his responsibility for the cache ended after he posted the listing. The NM will at least set the archival process in place and send the message out that it's not OK to abandon your cache and listing, no matter what the D/T rating.

 

Here's a better way to word the question:

 

Why would I NM a cache if I don't think there's anything wrong with it?

 

If you think there's something wrong with a cache, NM it. That's reasonable.

 

It's not reasonable to expect everyone to look at caches the same way and come to the same conclusions.

 

If you want to encourage people to use NM more often, nitpicking conscientious geocachers for using it differently than you is probably barking up the wrong tree.

Link to comment

Why would someone NM a difficult cache because other people DNFed on it?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment since we were discussing NMs in general, not NMs exclusively on difficult caches, but the obvious time to NM a difficult cache because of DNFs is when one of the DNFs says "I was with OtherCacher who found it previously, and he said it wasn't there" or some similar information. I've also DNFs difficult caches without that kind of red flag because, as I've explained before, no matter how hard a cache is, after a certain number of DNFs, people are going to start thinking it's missing, so the CO should go confirm it's there. In those cases, I'm not sure why the CO hasn't checked on it already, but when he hasn't, I need to nudge him. After all, if there's one thing more frustrating that spending an hour looking for a cache that's in place and not finding it, it's spending an hour looking for a cache that isn't there at all.

 

In that specific circumstance, my first assumption would be that OtherCacher doesn't remember the hide or that the hide has changed since OtherCacher found it. I'd post a detailed DNF explaining the situation, and then follow my usual process. Eventually I'd post an NM if the DNFs pile up with no action, but not right away. Claiming that the cache is definitely missing is a surefire way to make sure the next searcher spots it immediately and makes me look like a buffoon.

 

There are some caches that get DNFed often because they're difficult. With a cache like that, several DNFs don't make me think the cache might be missing, they merely confirm that the cache is difficult. Why should I post an NM on a cache like that?

 

A high D cache, you probably shouldn't post an NM if there is no other evidence that the cache might be missing. But if there is a good possibility based on several DNFs in a row, what is written in the DNF logs, and no response from the owner, what they heck, post the NM. The cache owner may need to come have a look. They agreed to maintenance, posting high D rated caches doesn't decrease the amount of checking required, sometimes it increases it.

 

"Good possibility" is subjective. I may not think there is a "good possibility" it's missing, but you could come along and have a totally different assessment. That's okay.

 

I post NMs fairly often. People like me are not the problem. Instead of nitpicking my process to death, perhaps it's time to generate positive ideas for getting non-NMers to reconsider their processes.

Link to comment

This weekend I got up to my waist in mud, twice, en route to a cache. Both after I'd already sunk up to my knee in the mud and had opted to turn around. A little unnerving; I felt like I was in an old cartoon and almost expected vultures to start circling overhead.

 

Anyway, I might have logged this as a DNF before, but with the new email algorithm in mind, I opted to leave a note instead.

Link to comment

I know of one cache that had a Find logged, confirming the cache was missing and that a nearby cacher (not the owner) would be out to replace it (almost 2 months ago now). I found evidence of the cache hide, but was told by the CO to log a DNF. The next log was a Find (which is still there) also confirming it missing but that they'd be signed in when the nearby cacher replaces it.

 

Some people seem to give zero meaning to the DNF, or what "available to be found" even means. blink.gif

Link to comment

A DNF is just that... did not find. It serves two purposes:

1. It lets the cache owner know that the cache is being searched for even if it wasn't found.

2. It's a record for you to keep track of caches you searched for but were unsuccessful in finding.

 

A string of DNFs (3 or more) in a row is a good indicator to the cache owner that maybe maintenance is needed, but not always as D4+ caches are going to be tricky to find. But a single DNF should not be an indicator of immediate maintenance.

 

I log all of my DNFs, mostly to fulfill #1. As a cache owner, I like to know when my caches are being searched for. If it's a cache that should be easy to find, I might go out and check on it after a DNF log. Then again, if the DNF comes from a new cacher with less than 10 finds logged, I'm also likely to ignore it. But at least I know my finds are getting some attention.

 

+1...

Link to comment

I can't be 100% certain that the cache is missing if the cache owner hasn't commented on it.

You can never be 100% certain that the cache is missing. At some point, you become reasonably certain the cache is missing. If I can see that going to GZ will not increase my confidence, I file the NM without visiting.

 

The decision to skip a cache is not worthy of a log at all, let alone an NM.

I think my decision not to visit GZ is worth an NM if I realize that anyone else looking at that evidence will also skip the cache. I file the NM because I've done the analysis, so anyone looking at the cache after me doesn't need to repeat the work. Besides, if I don't file an NM, no one will.

 

I just don't know if a cache Needs Maintenance or not if I haven't looked for it. Without visiting the site, the data I have is far too limited for me to make a call one way or another. I'm not a reviewer, so scrutinizing listings and asking for maintenance on caches I haven't visited isn't part of the game for me.

Ah, I see, here's our difference. I don't think reviewers are magical. In fact, the reviewer will typically have even less information than I do. And the reviewer's not going to visit GZ, either. Furthermore, I've recognized the problem now and can kick off a reaction, but the reviewer might not notice for months. So it makes no sense for me to expect the reviewer to file the NM for me when I've already done the work and can file it right away.

 

NM means just that - there's something wrong and it needs maintenance. The cache is broken, the log is wet, the log is full, the rope it hangs from is frayed... put what's wrong in the log text.

 

If you decide, from reading previous logs, the you believe the cache isn't there, log a write note saying that you didn't go to GZ but you believe that it's gone (as a CO, I know what type of response you'll get...).

 

If you actually go to GZ and don't find it, log a dnf and explain in that log how you tried. Here's a cache where I did just that - https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3MQE8_captain-conrad-moores-cd-1?guid=e714aef5-d609-411b-b444-678dde9d75df

Link to comment

I would have thought a DNF meant that the searcher did not find it. A DNF with an explanation that some contents of the cache where found nearby would suggest that some form of maintenance is required. A DNF that suggests the cache was hidden in a stump that is now a pile of smouldering ashes is a dead give away that some maintenance is required! A DNF does not mean immediate maintenance, it means you watch and see what happens next time and look at past posts and frequency of DNF posts. Otherwise, take a drive by for the hell of it!

Edited by boothie103
Link to comment

If you decide, from reading previous logs, the you believe the cache isn't there, log a write note saying that you didn't go to GZ but you believe that it's gone (as a CO, I know what type of response you'll get...).

If you were the CO, I'm sure it wouldn't get to the point of me seeing it needs an NM without visiting GZ. When I post an NM, it's because I recognize that the CO should have looked at the logs and realized he needs to check on it. You would have checked on it long before I reached that conclusion. I post the NM by way of giving the CO warning that this is his last chance, but I'm not actually expecting him to check on it because I'm suspecting he doesn't care anymore. And because the logs have made me suspect he doesn't care anymore, I don't lose any sleep about not bothering to visit GZ.

Link to comment

If you decide, from reading previous logs, the you believe the cache isn't there, log a write note saying that you didn't go to GZ but you believe that it's gone (as a CO, I know what type of response you'll get...).

If you were the CO, I'm sure it wouldn't get to the point of me seeing it needs an NM without visiting GZ. When I post an NM, it's because I recognize that the CO should have looked at the logs and realized he needs to check on it. You would have checked on it long before I reached that conclusion. I post the NM by way of giving the CO warning that this is his last chance, but I'm not actually expecting him to check on it because I'm suspecting he doesn't care anymore. And because the logs have made me suspect he doesn't care anymore, I don't lose any sleep about not bothering to visit GZ.

That's one of the main reason that I log DNFs. It lets other cachers and the CO know that someone looked and couldn't locate. Kinda like documenting an employees performance. If you don't document it, you've no recourse when it's time to give it the boot...

I wish more cachers would log DNFs - that's one of the things I look for when traveling. If DNFs from newbee cachers, I'll still try. If DNFs from experienced cachers, I won't stop (depends also on my schedule / amount of time available).

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

 

Unless it went missing since the last find. Whenever a cache goes missing, someone has to be the first DNF.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

 

Unless it went missing since the last find. Whenever a cache goes missing, someone has to be the first DNF.

 

Seriously. Write the DNF and indicate the extent of the search. I don't know if there's a problem or not - I only know that I didn't find the cache.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

 

The 'easy' cache with 20 smileys is precisely the one you should post a DNF on......

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

The dozens of times this has happened to me, I noted in my DNF log "...although it's possible it's just me today.".

- Since many joke I can't find anything smaller than a 30cal. :D

 

The majority of my DNFs were "easy" caches, most were no longer there.

 

We see the "easy" caches with the most issues (especially missing), the reason we archived all but one of ours with 1.5/1.5 or less.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

You're overthinking it. Just report what happened. Suppressing facts based on a guess about how others will react just confuses everything. An easy cache, 20 straight finds, no one's even suggesting a problem? Holy Hanna, your DNF is critical information! Imagine this: before you got there, how people thinking exactly like you do didn't file a DNF for exactly the same reason you didn't? 20 straight, perhaps?

Link to comment
The 'easy' cache with 20 smileys is precisely the one you should post a DNF on......
I'm glad others had the same reaction to that comment.

 

Perhaps a truly easy cache is gone. If no one posts the first DNF, then we'll never have the string of DNFs that should lead to a NM log (assuming the CO doesn't check on the cache before that).

 

Perhaps a supposedly "easy" cache is harder to find than the CO thinks. If no one posts their DNFs, then no one (including the CO) will see that seekers are sometimes unable to find the cache.

Link to comment

You're overthinking it. Just report what happened. Suppressing facts based on a guess about how others will react just confuses everything. An easy cache, 20 straight finds, no one's even suggesting a problem? Holy Hanna, your DNF is critical information! Imagine this: before you got there, how people thinking exactly like you do didn't file a DNF for exactly the same reason you didn't? 20 straight, perhaps?

+1 well said...

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

 

I agree with the first sentence, but not the specific example.

 

For example, I press "go" on the GPS start to walk to a cache. Then something unrelated to the cache causes me to abort. Maybe a call from home saying I need to come home immediately. As I never actually got to look for the cache, and the reason was personal, I would not log a DNF. However if the reason I could not reach GZ was the trail was closed, I would log a DNF. If I reach GZ and look, I always log a DNF.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the specific example.

 

For example, I press "go" on the GPS start to walk to a cache. Then something unrelated to the cache causes me to abort. Maybe a call from home saying I need to come home immediately. As I never actually got to look for the cache, and the reason was personal, I would not log a DNF. However if the reason I could not reach GZ was the trail was closed, I would log a DNF. If I reach GZ and look, I always log a DNF.

It's one thing to take into account whether your DNF will help someone when you're deciding whether it really should be called a search at all. But I read MysteryGuy1 as saying that after he does what everyone would consider a legitimate search, he then considers whether posting a DNF will help others. I'm saying the DNF, in itself, helps others, and I'm guessing you reject the example because you agree with that.

 

Mind you, I'm OK if someone decides not to file DNFs just as I'm OK if someone decides not to file Find logs. I'm just pointing out that knowing someone searched and didn't find it is inherently helpful. There's no rule saying you always have to file all logs that would be helpful.

Link to comment

But I read MysteryGuy1 as saying that after he does what everyone would consider a legitimate search, he then considers whether posting a DNF will help others. I'm saying the DNF, in itself, helps others, and I'm guessing you reject the example because you agree with that.

 

 

Yes, I agree. If I looked for it, I'll log a DNF, as the fact that I looked and didn't find is useful. I'll also note how long I searched.

Link to comment

I tend not to log my DNF's unless I think it will be helpful to other cachers. If I fail to find an "easy" cache where the previous 20 logs have smileys, I don't see much point. It's obviously there, and I don't want my DNF to discourage anyone from looking. I generally log DNFs only in cases where it's obvious there's a problem.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the specific example.

 

For example, I press "go" on the GPS start to walk to a cache. Then something unrelated to the cache causes me to abort. Maybe a call from home saying I need to come home immediately. As I never actually got to look for the cache, and the reason was personal, I would not log a DNF. However if the reason I could not reach GZ was the trail was closed, I would log a DNF. If I reach GZ and look, I always log a DNF.

It's one thing to take into account whether your DNF will help someone when you're deciding whether it really should be called a search at all. But I read MysteryGuy1 as saying that after he does what everyone would consider a legitimate search, he then considers whether posting a DNF will help others. I'm saying the DNF, in itself, helps others, and I'm guessing you reject the example because you agree with that.

 

Mind you, I'm OK if someone decides not to file DNFs just as I'm OK if someone decides not to file Find logs. I'm just pointing out that knowing someone searched and didn't find it is inherently helpful. There's no rule saying you always have to file all logs that would be helpful.

 

I consider two factors - whether or not the DNF is useful to others, and whether or not it's useful to me. DNF is a record of my own geocaching activity. I write clear logs that state the reason for the DNF so there is no good reason why my DNF should ever be misinterpreted by a real person.

Link to comment

I consider two factors - whether or not the DNF is useful to others, and whether or not it's useful to me. DNF is a record of my own geocaching activity. I write clear logs that state the reason for the DNF so there is no good reason why my DNF should ever be misinterpreted by a real person.

Yeah, sure, that makes sense, but I wonder if you ever consider whether there's no good reason to post a found log. To my way of thinking -- not that I necessarily recommend my way of thinking -- DNF and Found are just two sides of the same coin, so I always log what happened without stopping to consider whether it will someday be useful to me or to others. Normally I only give the decision any serious thought in cases like what redsox_mark brought up where there's the question of whether I actually looked for it at all, and then one factor I'll consider is whether what happened would be useful to anyone else even if it isn't clear that it amounted to a search.

 

Again, not that I don't sometimes decide a real search with a real DNF is, nevertheless, not worth mentioning, but there are usually other factors in addition to the fact that no one will find it useful.

Link to comment

I consider two factors - whether or not the DNF is useful to others, and whether or not it's useful to me. DNF is a record of my own geocaching activity. I write clear logs that state the reason for the DNF so there is no good reason why my DNF should ever be misinterpreted by a real person.

Yeah, sure, that makes sense, but I wonder if you ever consider whether there's no good reason to post a found log. To my way of thinking -- not that I necessarily recommend my way of thinking -- DNF and Found are just two sides of the same coin, so I always log what happened without stopping to consider whether it will someday be useful to me or to others. Normally I only give the decision any serious thought in cases like what redsox_mark brought up where there's the question of whether I actually looked for it at all, and then one factor I'll consider is whether what happened would be useful to anyone else even if it isn't clear that it amounted to a search.

 

Again, not that I don't sometimes decide a real search with a real DNF is, nevertheless, not worth mentioning, but there are usually other factors in addition to the fact that no one will find it useful.

 

Well, a found log means I found the cache. A DNF log means I made an attempt to find the cache and did not. My threshold for "attempt" is pretty low, so the veiled shaming about not logging DNFs should probably be pointed in someone else's direction.

Link to comment

Well, a found log means I found the cache. A DNF log means I made an attempt to find the cache and did not. My threshold for "attempt" is pretty low, so the veiled shaming about not logging DNFs should probably be pointed in someone else's direction.

What you say here, if I'm reading it right, makes more sense to me: you don't think it's useful because you think whatever you did was trivial enough not to be considered a search. As I mentioned before, I was commenting in the context of a definite search with a undeniable failure to find and the claim that that information would not be useful to anyone.

 

And just to be absolutely clear, although I've made this point in every post I've made in this thread, I'll try to say even more clearly: discussing the logical reasons for not filing a DNF in no way implies a judgement about who files what DNFs. As far as I'm concerned, "I don't feel like it" is a perfectly fine reason for not filing a DNF. I cache with people all the time that don't file DNFs as a matter of routine, and it doesn't matter to me at all. So if you're seeing veils with shaming behind them, they're all in your head.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the feedback on my earlier post. It gives me something to think about. The basis for my approach to DNFs is the fact that I've failed to find many caches that were found soon after by others, which leads me to assume that most of my DNFs are really there. If there's strong evidence that it's not where it should be, that's when I typically post. But if I'm not sure, I'm hesitant to say anything.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...