Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+thebruce0]

Let me lay out my understanding of DNF and NM, once again:

 

* "Needs Maintenance" by its own name implies that the person posting it knows, has judged by their opinion, that the cache and/or listing requires owner attention. That should mean that they have at least either:

A] Found the cache in a state of disrepair sufficient in their opinion to warrant owner attention (container)

B] Have made an attempt to find the cache but could not, for a reason they believe is unavoidable and requires the owner's attention (listing)

So if everyone stops looking for a cache, an NM should never be posted?

Yes.

Why would there be?

How could there be?

No one knows that maintenance is needed.

 

If everyone stops looking for a cache after a bunch of finds, should a NM be posted?

If everyone stops looking for a cache after a bunch of DNFs, should a NM be posted?

How does anyone know, in either case, if container maintenance is actually required?

 

And now we come to the rare situation that I've allowed for:

 

Provide a good example of a NM log on a cache posted by someone that has not visited the cache, nor has first-hand knowledge that a required task in order to visit the cache needs owner attention, and I'll tell you whether it's a log that I would post based on my methodology.

OK, fair enough. I'm obviously having trouble explaining this very simple general concept, so let's try discussing a specific example:

 

Here's my NM log on @CasaVerde.

 

Note the cache D and T are 3.0/1.5. I'll presume that this was also the original log text from 2015.

Q: "It turns out this was a cache too far, so I didn't seriously think of walking over here , but if I had considered it seriously, I would have skipped it because of the series of DNFs stretching back nearly a year. Since I was never anywhere near here, obviously I can't weigh in on whether it's there, but I doubt anyone will come looking for it again unless it's checked."

 

Some comments I made in this thread relevant to this:

 

* If you don't make an attempt to find the cache at all, for whatever reason, almost certainly there is zero reason for you to log a NM, nor a DNF.

* Of course, then you get into whether it's ok to post a NM, without having visited the cache, based solely on the existence of DNFs, making that assumption that the cache is missing, without verification that it is. And of course that would be just as presumptuous as writing "the cache is missing" in said DNF.

* it would still be just as bad to post a NM saying "The logs make me think the cache is missing". At that point the log content is irrelevant, and the NM is not based on any credible evidence.

* ["Need Maintenance"] means they either a] found the cache and identified a problem that needs addressing, or maybe in the case of not finding the cache b] believes that there is a problem in the necessary steps in order to locate the cache (perhaps say, the listing describes requiring climbing an installed ladder to reach the cache perched on a ledge, but you discover the ladder has broken and fallen and it's no longer accessible as described).

* You would have to make a judgement call based on how certain you think that you are that the cache is missing. A wrong NM can be addressed by the CO.

 

Conclusions based on the above:

1. Having not visited the location to the degree you imply you did, I can't judge if I think you "made an attempt". However I provided room for the rare instance where one might post a NM log on a clear problem cache with a high certainty of an issue that needs attention. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would say you "made an attempt" being en route, but found rather that there was sufficient reason to draw owner attention to a problematic necessary step in order to reach the cache.

Even if you weren't near enough (IMO) to have "made an attempt", you made a judgement call (not from your couch) that there was a problem with the cache and/or listing which was sufficient to warrant owner attention. And now the CO can look at that and make their own judgement as to whether your NM is wrong, or warranted.

 

2. Personally, I wouldn't post a NM in this situation unless I could not reach GZ (made an attempt).

2b. If there were many DNFs and I simply chose not to go for it despite it being 'near' me, that alone wouldn't prompt me to post a NM. BUT, and I presume this was your judgement, if I felt that the cache's DT rating and most recent status itself warranted owner attention because, maybe, it seemed like no one else 'wanted' to posted that dreaded NM, I might do so -- but only because I judged there to be a legitimate reason, not merely because of DNFs. Without any presumptuous statement as if I know there to be a problem.

 

3. You said yourself in the NM log content that you couldn't confirm whether the cache was there or not. You didn't make an assumption. Your reason for the NM is not based on an implied verified first-hand statement that the cache was missing or that the container definitely required maintenance. Your reason for the NM was based on your judgement from the listing's state.

 

4. Some may consider your NM a "cache police" mentality and criticize you for posting it. I wouldn't weigh in on that sentiment either way.

[+thebruce0]

The best way to ping the CO is with an NM. That way, if anyone else looks at the log and reaches the same conclusion, they don't have to also ping the CO. Then when the CO responds, everyone also sees the response.

 

And, of course, most importantly, if the CO doesn't respond, the wheels are set in motion for the missing cache to be taken off the books. No wonder so many areas have so much trouble with missing caches if people don't get this simple concept.

Yes. It is certainly a process that needs to happen more often because many cachers who make attempts don't bother posting concerns as NM. Or owners aren't diligent enough to be concerned over sufficient DNFs to warrant a pre-emptive checkup.

 

Ideally, NMs are posted by people who visit or attempt to visit the cache and can verify problems with cache and/or listing.

 

Occasionally, "good samaritans" will bite the bullet and risk posting a NM that may or may not be warranted. How would they know it does? It's based on a feeling or opinion, not first-hand knowledge.

 

But this has moved from the DNFs meaning maintenance needed, to the etiquette for posting NM logs explicitly.

Edited April 28, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Here's my NM log on @CasaVerde.

 

I notice that cache had a previous string of DNF's of a similar length, helpfully pointed out in a NM log by a previous cacher who at least took the trouble to visit GZ and attempt a search and when the CO responded to the log by checking on the cache it was still there.

 

I wonder if the cache might still be there now.

 

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

[+justintim1999]

I think what's being missed here is that you shouldn't see 4 or 5 dnf's on a cache without an owners maintenance log right behind it.

Even if those 4 or 5 are on the same day by the same group of newbies who spent 30 seconds on a D5 cache?

Yup. I'd have to assume that if 4 or 5 people couldn't find it than I'd better check up on it. Now if I knew the group to be number hounds than I may let it slide until the next dnf. Most of the multiple dnf's I encounter are by different cachers on different days. 2 or 3 of those would get me out there to see what's up.

Ok so in this case your conext is as the CO.

What type of cache hide?

For an LPC or most average caches, most likely 4 or 5 DNFs would prompt me to visit it. On a D5 hide? Nope. But again, heavily dependent on the content of those DNFs.

 

Like anything else, it's about interpreting the information and doing what you think is right.

[+lee737]

I think what's being missed here is that you shouldn't see 4 or 5 dnf's on a cache without an owners maintenance log right behind it. I want people to find my caches. Multiple dnf's will keep most cachers away. Why would I allow that situation to continue unless for some reason I'm not paying attention to my logs.

 

Exactly. Its a pity though, around here, 4 or 5 DNFs is usually followed by NM/NA action...... I quite enjoy checking our caches, gives us a chance to do some caching when the local un-found caches are getting low! (which is always!).....

 

[+dprovan]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

[+dprovan]

So there's this fairy tale we tell newbies that they should never log an NM unless they visit GZ. That's because newbies don't have enough experience to accurately figure out, just from the logs, whether an NM is appropriate. Once you get that experience -- once you recognize that you should factor in the difficulty and frequencies, take into account a single failure by a group that's logged as multiple DNFs, consider the experience of the people posting the DNFs, and all the other things people have mentioned in this thread as extenuating factors -- then you're supposed to realize that if you don't file the NM on a cache after you decide isn't worth looking for, then no one will, and the cache that's clearly missing will remain on the map forever. Well, unless you complain so much about all the missing caches that GS tells reviewers to do something about it, and then the reviewers will look at all the caches everywhere and, with even less information than you have and much more effort, they will decide whether to take action against this one cache that you could have posted an NM for 2 months ago.

 

Of course, this is all moot since they're getting rid of NMs as a separate log...

[+Team Microdot]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

 

On the example you provided with its low number of DNF's and a previous suggestion it was missing when it wasn't, my confidence that the cache was missing would be fairly low and probably too low to consider NM.

 

So no, not exactly, as much as you'd like it to be.

[+Team Microdot]

then you're supposed to realize that if you don't file the NM on a cache after you decide isn't worth looking for, then no one will, and the cache that's clearly missing

 

So cute!

 

Now you're claiming that there IS a point at which it's reasonable to assume that the cache is missing based on the number of DNF's when previously you denied that was ever the case.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+justintim1999]

So there's this fairy tale we tell newbies that they should never log an NM unless they visit GZ. That's because newbies don't have enough experience to accurately figure out, just from the logs, whether an NM is appropriate. Once you get that experience -- once you recognize that you should factor in the difficulty and frequencies, take into account a single failure by a group that's logged as multiple DNFs, consider the experience of the people posting the DNFs, and all the other things people have mentioned in this thread as extenuating factors -- then you're supposed to realize that if you don't file the NM on a cache after you decide isn't worth looking for, then no one will, and the cache that's clearly missing will remain on the map forever. Well, unless you complain so much about all the missing caches that GS tells reviewers to do something about it, and then the reviewers will look at all the caches everywhere and, with even less information than you have and much more effort, they will decide whether to take action against this one cache that you could have posted an NM for 2 months ago.

 

Of course, this is all moot since they're getting rid of NMs as a separate log...

 

Don't worry about feeling like you need to post a NM on the these types of caches. That's one of the issues the health score is designed to help take care of.

[+dprovan]

Now you're claiming that there IS a point at which it's reasonable to assume that the cache is missing based on the number of DNF's when previously you denied that was ever the case.

I said it was a good guess based on all the evidence, not exclusively on the number of DNFs. And the specific point was that a human could tell by looking at the logs, but you can't tell by turning loose a robot to count DNFs.

[+dprovan]

Don't worry about feeling like you need to post a NM on the these types of caches. That's one of the issues the health score is designed to help take care of.

I assume that's a joke, and if so, it's funny. But in case it isn't: naturally, my position is the reverse: I worry about a stupid mechanism based on automated application of some arbitrary scoring being implemented to make up for the fact people aren't using the more effective approach of filing the appropriate NMs.

[+WearyTraveler]

I would never log a NM without actually finding the cache, or what appeared to be remnants of the cache.

 

If I DNF a cache, I'll log a dnf.

 

If I'm local, I'll try a couple of times, watching the cache for any log entries. If, after at least 2 of my DNFs and a couple of others' DNFs, I'll message the CO and ask for a hint or for him to check his cache. I'll also write note that I've asked the CO to check.

 

That gives newbies and oldbees alike the information to determine whether they want to attempt or not.

 

Only after the above, or a non responsive Co, would I even consider NA.

 

NM doesn't always lead to NA. I've found smashed micros and smalls. If I have a replacement container, I'll replace it, send the CO a picture, and make a comment in my found log that and why I replaced the container. No - I don't use throw downs... I have to find it to NM / replace it...

[+dprovan]

NM doesn't always lead to NA.

That's right! NMs are just information. That's why if you're going to send a message to the CO because you've concluded it's missing, it's better to just post an NM. Everyone gets the same info, and the CO clears the NM with an OM saying either "thanks, I replaced it" or "probably still there, keep looking" or whatever.

 

But on the other hand, there are cases where the CO is out of the picture or doesn't care, in which case they won't respond to your private message and nothing will happen. Filing the NM covers that case, too, since now everyone can see that the CO didn't react, and the missing cache can move along towards an NA instead of just staying there forever or until a reviewer stumbles across it.

[+Team Microdot]

Now you're claiming that there IS a point at which it's reasonable to assume that the cache is missing based on the number of DNF's when previously you denied that was ever the case.

I said it was a good guess based on all the evidence, not exclusively on the number of DNFs. And the specific point was that a human could tell by looking at the logs, but you can't tell by turning loose a robot to count DNFs.

 

Yeah. I was making the same point but it looks like the same point can be right and wrong at the same time - depending on who is making it.

 

I wasn't aware robots even came into this discussion.

[+niraD]

I would never log a NM without actually finding the cache, or what appeared to be remnants of the cache.

I've done it a couple times, when GZ was clearly well inside a construction zone. Either the cache needed to be temporarily disabled until the construction was completed, or the coordinates were really off. Either way, maintenance from the CO was needed.

[+narcissa]

I would never log a NM without actually finding the cache, or what appeared to be remnants of the cache.

I've done it a couple times, when GZ was clearly well inside a construction zone. Either the cache needed to be temporarily disabled until the construction was completed, or the coordinates were really off. Either way, maintenance from the CO was needed.

 

Yeah, I rarely NM a cache if I haven't been to GZ and if there isn't some physical evidence that the cache has a problem. I generally don't conduct a thorough forensic accounting of logs and profiles that would lead me to NM a cache without a field visit. If I DNF, I often follow the cache for a while to see what happens (because I do like to resolve DNFs eventually) and I might log an NM if I see DNFs piling up or other reasons for concern.

[+justintim1999]

Don't worry about feeling like you need to post a NM on the these types of caches. That's one of the issues the health score is designed to help take care of.

I assume that's a joke, and if so, it's funny. But in case it isn't: naturally, my position is the reverse: I worry about a stupid mechanism based on automated application of some arbitrary scoring being implemented to make up for the fact people aren't using the more effective approach of filing the appropriate NMs.

 

I know your position well as I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't joking.

[+hzoi]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

 

On the example you provided with its low number of DNF's and a previous suggestion it was missing when it wasn't, my confidence that the cache was missing would be fairly low and probably too low to consider NM.

 

So no, not exactly, as much as you'd like it to be.

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something? I for one am tired of the constant micturation tournament.

 

A couple of years ago, one or both of you would have gotten a permanent forum vacation by this point. I'm surprised no moderator has stepped in yet, but this is just becoming tiresome.

[+bflentje]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

 

On the example you provided with its low number of DNF's and a previous suggestion it was missing when it wasn't, my confidence that the cache was missing would be fairly low and probably too low to consider NM.

 

So no, not exactly, as much as you'd like it to be.

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something? I for one am tired of the constant micturation tournament.

 

A couple of years ago, one or both of you would have gotten a permanent forum vacation by this point. I'm surprised no moderator has stepped in yet, but this is just becoming tiresome.

 

Best post in the entire thread.

[+J Grouchy]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

 

On the example you provided with its low number of DNF's and a previous suggestion it was missing when it wasn't, my confidence that the cache was missing would be fairly low and probably too low to consider NM.

 

So no, not exactly, as much as you'd like it to be.

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something? I for one am tired of the constant micturation tournament.

 

A couple of years ago, one or both of you would have gotten a permanent forum vacation by this point. I'm surprised no moderator has stepped in yet, but this is just becoming tiresome.

 

Ten paces at dawn.

 

[+Team Microdot]

I'm reminded of fizzymagic's thread about the trend towards demand for guaranteed finds slowly killing the game.

So cute! Now you're criticizing me for doing exactly what you said you'd do yourself.

 

On the example you provided with its low number of DNF's and a previous suggestion it was missing when it wasn't, my confidence that the cache was missing would be fairly low and probably too low to consider NM.

 

So no, not exactly, as much as you'd like it to be.

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something?

 

The air fares alone make that extremely unlikely

[+fuzziebear3]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

[+dprovan]

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something? I for one am tired of the constant micturation tournament.

 

A couple of years ago, one or both of you would have gotten a permanent forum vacation by this point. I'm surprised no moderator has stepped in yet, but this is just becoming tiresome.

Could you explain our problem to us? How are either of us being off topic (other than this post) or unreasonable? I'd really appreciate your help getting us to see eye to eye.

[+narcissa]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

 

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

[+justintim1999]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

 

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

 

Both posts are a good example of what's wrong with caching today. You've got one cacher afraid to post a simple dnf on a cache that may or may not be actually missing, and the other trying to blaim dnf's for the reason caches get archived.

 

Let's be clear.

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

[+L0ne.R]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

 

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

 

Both posts are a good example of what's wrong with caching today. You've got one cacher afraid to post a simple dnf on a cache that may or may not be actually missing, and the other trying to blaim dnf's for the reason caches get archived.

 

Let's be clear.

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

 

+1!

Edited May 3, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+hzoi]

Can the two of you please just meet up somewhere offline and beat on each other or something? I for one am tired of the constant micturation tournament.

 

A couple of years ago, one or both of you would have gotten a permanent forum vacation by this point. I'm surprised no moderator has stepped in yet, but this is just becoming tiresome.

Could you explain our problem to us? How are either of us being off topic (other than this post) or unreasonable? I'd really appreciate your help getting us to see eye to eye.

Click on your "recent posts" and review the growing list of posts you've contributed, with emphasis to those topics involving, say, 5 or more pages. Consider whether you added to the topic or contributed to the knowledge base of geocaching, or whether you just batted a topic back and forth with someone for your own entertainment or to prove you were right.

 

This isn't directed just at you, but you are by far the most...enthusiastic...contributor to the general forum devolution that I've seen over the last couple months. But I'm not a forum moderator, and I won't pretend I am, so I will leave it at that.

[+narcissa]

I'm all in favour of people playing their own way and inventing side games, but I have to say that I'm having real difficulty understanding this new side game of deliberately trying to personally destroy fellow geocachers and eliminate as many caches from the game as possible. Is this just the latest evolution of that group that was stealing caches in the name of the environment?

 

Geocaching can't work if it isn't a game of give and take. As cache owners, sometimes we need to laugh at the folly of fellow geocachers who do silly things, and forgive them while they learn to do better. As cache finders, sometimes we need to be forgiving of minor nuisances that are bound to come up when we try to put plastic containers outdoors for extended periods of time, especially in harsh climates.

 

The game doesn't work if cache finders and cache owners are constantly trying to hurt and punish each other for every minor annoyance. I understand that it's mildly frustrating when a logbook is a bit damp or the swag wasn't exactly what you asked for on your wishlist to Santa, but some people really need to take a breath and stop trying to turn this into a brutal regime. It's a game! And I don't think the reviewers want to be the gestapo.

[+Justin Of Terrytown]

To me, a DNF means I tried my best to find it but I could not find it.

 

There have been occasions when I marked a Geocache has DNF, went and looked again a few days later (before the owner checked on it) and found it on the second try. One of the Geocaches, I looked for it four times and found it on my fourth try (the owner of the Geocache was happy that I never gave up and finally found it).

[+thebruce0]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

 

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

Both posts are a good example of what's wrong with caching today. You've got one cacher afraid to post a simple dnf on a cache that may or may not be actually missing, and the other trying to blaim dnf's for the reason caches get archived.

 

Let's be clear.

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

+1!

+1.5!

 

(technically, it gets archived only if the reviewer actively deems it not worth keeping alive - even if the "score" implies a potential problem)

[+colleda]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

No, no, no, no. As a CO I want those DNFs logged. I want to know what's happening. If a CO does not respond then its on him if a cacher (eventually) logs NM then NA.

[+narcissa]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

No, no, no, no. As a CO I want those DNFs logged. I want to know what's happening. If a CO does not respond then its on him if a cacher (eventually) logs NM then NA.

 

I want those logs too, but a CO should not have to respond to a DNF like that. A DNF is not a call for maintenance. It's a statement about someone's experience searching for the cache. Now it's been turned into this toxic thing that requires immediate attention or else the cache is deemed to be in "poor health." We'll all have to learn to live with less information and less cache history from logs, and COs will need to learn that DNF is the new NA.

[+justintim1999]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

 

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

Both posts are a good example of what's wrong with caching today. You've got one cacher afraid to post a simple dnf on a cache that may or may not be actually missing, and the other trying to blaim dnf's for the reason caches get archived.

 

Let's be clear.

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

+1!

+1.5!

 

(technically, it gets archived only if the reviewer actively deems it not worth keeping alive - even if the "score" implies a potential problem)

 

I don't think a reviewer can determine on their own what's worthy of keeping alive. As long as the cache has no guideline issues and the owner is actively supporting it, the cache is safe.

[+justintim1999]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

No, no, no, no. As a CO I want those DNFs logged. I want to know what's happening. If a CO does not respond then its on him if a cacher (eventually) logs NM then NA.

 

I want those logs too, but a CO should not have to respond to a DNF like that. A DNF is not a call for maintenance. It's a statement about someone's experience searching for the cache. Now it's been turned into this toxic thing that requires immediate attention or else the cache is deemed to be in "poor health." We'll all have to learn to live with less information and less cache history from logs, and COs will need to learn that DNF is the new NA.

 

That's absurd. I don't get the sense that anyone is suggesting that dnf's are anything but that. An owner shouldn't have to run out every time one is posted unless they believe that the cache is indeed missing. Cache maintenance is an act based on good faith and good judgment. It shouldn't be based on convenience.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

 

I would say "unless the cache owner let's it happen" rather than "wants". And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

I see several threads all converging on same thing, and to me it is all about balance. When a CO gets an automated health mail, a good CO will feel they need to do something. When a reviewer disables a cache, they do need to do something.

 

The balance is between tight control and rules vs. a more relaxed approach. If you make the control too tight, and a CO gets a mail from Groundspeak or their cache disabled for a single DNF, or due to someone using the word "mold", good COs can get put off. And especially their caches which are harder to reach. So they might get fed up and let the archive happen. It doesn't mean they want it.

 

One can say - well if the CO isn't willing to check after a single DNF, or do a check once a year regardless, we don't need them. But I don't agree with this, at least not if you make the rules too draconian.

 

If you make the control too lax, you get caches in a bad state being allowed to stay for years, and/or caches which seem to be "obviously" missing still listed as active.

 

Groundspeak has clearly decided that the controls need to be tighter - that is how I read this "focus on quality". And I don't object to this in moderation. I do object when a single DNF triggers a health mail or disabling, and I object to those on this forum who want more rules and control for COs.

 

So much of the debate depends on how important one feels "quality" (cache in perfect condition, guaranteed to be there) is compared to the rest of the game. If one feels the quality is big issue and spoiling the game for them, of course they want more rules and control to fix it. If one thinks it is fine as is, then they don't see the need for more rules and control. Or indeed, they feel too much focus on rules and controls for COs is hurting the game.

 

I'm generally in the camp of "existing controls are good enough". Caches in a poor state, abandoned, or clearly not there get removed in time via the NM/NA route. I'm not against a bit of pro-active reviewer action, nor a reminder by a health tool if it errs on the side of caution. Just don't push it.

Edited May 4, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+justintim1999]

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

 

I would say "unless the cache owner let's it happen" rather than "wants". And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

I see several threads all converging on same thing, and to me it is all about balance. When a CO gets an automated health mail, a good CO will feel they need to do something. When a reviewer disables a cache, they do need to do something.

 

The balance is between tight control and rules vs. a more relaxed approach. If you make the control too tight, and a CO gets a mail from Groundspeak or their cache disabled for a single DNF, or due to someone using the word "mold", good COs can get put off. And especially their caches which are harder to reach. So they might get fed up and let the archive happen. It doesn't mean they want it.

 

One can say - well if the CO isn't willing to check after a single DNF, or do a check once a year regardless, we don't need them. But I don't agree with this, at least not if you make the rules too draconian.

 

If you make the control too lax, you get caches in a bad state being allowed to stay for years, and/or caches which seem to be "obviously" missing still listed as active.

 

Groundspeak has clearly decided that the controls need to be tighter - that is how I read this "focus on quality". And I don't object to this in moderation. I do object when a single DNF triggers a health mail or disabling, and I object to those on this forum who want more rules and control for COs.

 

So much of the debate depends on how important one feels "quality" (cache in perfect condition, guaranteed to be there) is compared to the rest of the game. If one feels the quality is big issue and spoiling the game for them, of course they want more rules and control to fix it. If one thinks it is fine as is, then they don't see the need for more rules and control. Or indeed, they feel too much focus on rules and controls for COs is hurting the game.

 

I'm generally in the camp of "existing controls are good enough". Caches in a poor state, abandoned, or clearly not there get removed in time via the NM/NA route. I'm not against a bit of pro-active reviewer action, nor a reminder by a health tool if it errs on the side of caution. Just don't push it.

 

A well maintained cache is a good thing all around even if finding the cache isn't your primary reason for geocaching.

 

For me this is all about honoring a commitment.

 

When I submitted my caches for publication Groundspeak agreed to list my caches on their site and I agreed to follow the guidelines and maintain my caches to the best of my ability. I entered this agreement understanding what it may entail and agreed to put in what ever time was required to fulfill my part of the deal.

 

It's understandable that some people rush into cache ownership without realizing what it takes to do it right. Part of it is human nature, part of it is the ease at witch Groundspeak as made cache ownership possible.

 

I agree the current system would work if everyone used it as intended. But that's simply not happening on a consistent basis. Meanwhile the overall quality is slowly getting worse.

 

It's unfortunate that this particular person died before they had a chance to adopt out their caches or archive them. However I support the fact that they were rightfully archived regardless of how it was determined or what condition they were in.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Let's be clear.

 

Nothing gets archived unless the cache owner wants it to.

 

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

[+WearyTraveler]

And just yesterday, I looked for a cache that I know is there, and is tricky, but I didn't find it. And yet, because of this discussion, I didn't log my DNF like I normally would have. I don't want the cache to get a black eye because I am lousy at finding things. I am planning to look again today and hope to find it, then I can just tell the full story in my found it log. But it's not the way I would have preferred to handle my logging.

No, no, no, no. As a CO I want those DNFs logged. I want to know what's happening. If a CO does not respond then its on him if a cacher (eventually) logs NM then NA.

Exactly

[+narcissa]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

[+justintim1999]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

[+WearyTraveler]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

[+justintim1999]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

Why would you? Like it or not everything you've just said is true.

[+L0ne.R]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

[+redsox_mark]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

I wasn't thinking about the wishes of the deceased.. more that someone is temporarily out of touch for more than the usual 30 days clock on a "disabled, take action or I'll archive" reviewer action.

[+justintim1999]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

This is interesting. Are you asking for someone to inform your reviewer of your untimely demise and authorizing the reviewer to archive your caches? If so do you think they will honor your wish?

[+L0ne.R]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

I wasn't thinking about the wishes of the deceased.. more that someone is temporarily out of touch for more than the usual 30 days clock on a "disabled, take action or I'll archive" reviewer action.

 

Any examples of this happening?

If I took ill suddenly, I think I'd have about 3 months - 1 year before any of my caches were archived by a reviewer. If I'm out that long, unable to use a computer or get someone else to login and leave a note for me, I think the loss of a few caches would be the least of my problems.

[+WearyTraveler]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

Why would you? Like it or not everything you've just said is true.

I'm not part of TPTB, so I'd just do what the rules say... maintain my caches - just like I agreed to do when I signed up.

 

Couple things come to mind...

 

• 
   
  
• Maybe something similar to fav points - I get to add a fav point for every certain number of finds.
  
• How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).
  
• Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.
  
• Or the response time to NMs?
  
• Or how often they log in - gotta be active to place caches...
   
  

Or how about we all just act responsible and we'd have many fewer problems...

 

The primary reason (only in my humble opinion) that the health score / NA / NM hoopla is to fix caches that are turning into trash in the environment. I'm sure someone is going to yank out a corner case and say I'm wrong, but again, my opinion...

 

If we cleaned up after ourselves, no one would have to clean up after us. Someone has to take action if a CO stops playing and his cache deteriorates.

[+narcissa]

If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

I'm not talking about people who are too busy. I'm talking about people who are making the same well-reasoned decisions about their caches that they always have now being nagged by an automated system that is incapable of taking context into account, and then being further nagged by reviewers when they don't act on the automatic nuisance messages.

 

My greater concern is that this change fundamentally alters the meaning of DNF. We've always had a problem with a segment of cachers not logging DNFs out of some misplace sense of shame or embarassment. Now people are going to be even more hesitant to log them because they don't want to cause trouble for fellow geocachers. It's a real blow to the integrity of the game that these valuable insights and interesting cache details will be lost because these logs are now treated as a negative hit against a cache.

 

I really don't see how deterring people from providing information - which is already sadly lacking now because of poor logging habits in general - is going to improve the quality of caches or the health of the game.

 

Right now there's a very unreasonable faction of this game that is extremely vocal. If their caching experience isn't exactly what they had hoped for down to the brand of container and specific items of swag, they aren't merely disappointed, they must lash out and hurt the people responsible for "wasting their time" by dreaming up revolting schemes for punishing other geocachers. Good cachers are being caught in the crossfire.

[+justintim1999]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

Why would you? Like it or not everything you've just said is true.

I'm not part of TPTB, so I'd just do what the rules say... maintain my caches - just like I agreed to do when I signed up.

 

Couple things come to mind...

 

• 
   
  
• Maybe something similar to fav points - I get to add a fav point for every certain number of finds.
  
• How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).
  
• Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.
  
• Or the response time to NMs?
  
• Or how often they log in - gotta be active to place caches...
   
  

Or how about we all just act responsible and we'd have many fewer problems...

 

The primary reason (only in my humble opinion) that the health score / NA / NM hoopla is to fix caches that are turning into trash in the environment. I'm sure someone is going to yank out a corner case and say I'm wrong, but again, my opinion...

 

If we cleaned up after ourselves, no one would have to clean up after us. Someone has to take action if a CO stops playing and his cache deteriorates.

 

Have you ever read the U.S. Tax code? Nether have I, but it's around 70,000 pages for a reason. Humans are designed to find a way over, around or through things. (edited)

Edited May 4, 2017 by justintim1999