Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Even if your DNFs are there, isn't it helpful to know so you can try again later? I often look back at my DNF logs to see if they turned out to be missing, or if I just didn't find it. I've done that for as long as I've been geocaching, and it's how I become better at finding the tricky ones. The DNF is for you as much as it's for anybody else.

[+coachstahly]

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.

I got over that pretty quickly after my first few events when I was told by COs that I should log each DNF I earn when out caching. Even though it might not help anyone after me, at the very least it lets the CO know that their cache is in play, even if it wasn't found. I usually don't have much to say about my regular DNFs so I usually comment about the couple spots I looked, how long I looked, and whether or not I expanded my search area.

[+barefootjeff]

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.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing.

[+dprovan]

But if I'm not sure, I'm hesitant to say anything.

This is really why I'm commenting at all. While, of course, it's fine for you to log DNFs or not for whatever reason you want, the one thing I don't want is for you to hesitate because you're afraid of someone else thinking your log is a waste of time. If you decide to write it up, then by definition it has value, and anyone thinking it doesn't is just wrong.

[+narcissa]

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.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing.

 

I think we should all strive to use DNF more, with clear, descriptive logs to illustrate how absurd it is to assume that DNF = missing.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

In a scenario where some hits "Go" (the app actually uses "Start") and then something unrelated causes them to abort, I don't see how posting a DNF is inherently helpful. If the reason for the abort was due to a flooded river, or too many muggles near GZ those are reasons that someone else might encountered and a DNF (with a description why the search was aborted) could be helpful. However, if the abort was due to a call from home, or even a downpour of rain those are scenarios, a DNF really doesn't help anyone else.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing.

 

I think we should all strive to use DNF more, with clear, descriptive logs to illustrate how absurd it is to assume that DNF = missing.

 

Which DNF would that be? The first? The tenth? The hundredth?

 

Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing.

[+J Grouchy]

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.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing.

 

I think we should all strive to use DNF more, with clear, descriptive logs to illustrate how absurd it is to assume that DNF = missing.

 

Which DNF would that be? The first? The tenth? The hundredth?

 

Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing.

 

Or potentially never there to begin with?

[+coachstahly]

What about this cache? Would you assume it were missing with 55 DNFs (and even more notes posted which I'm sure included some searches) before it was ever found? The CO posted many notes before the first find but hasn't posted much recently. I'd bet that ti's still there but with the DNFs posted, many still assume it's not there. Of the 99 finds, it's my guess that some of them aren't valid finds, meaning that there should probably be more than the 317 DNFs posted, due to many people not logging their DNFs as well as some bogus finds. The most recent found it log is just an example. Having found it, it's awfully hard to imagine there's no log in there, based on the hide.

Edited April 26, 2017 by coachstahly

[+Team Microdot]

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.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing.

 

I think we should all strive to use DNF more, with clear, descriptive logs to illustrate how absurd it is to assume that DNF = missing.

 

Which DNF would that be? The first? The tenth? The hundredth?

 

Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing.

 

Or potentially never there to begin with?

 

Indeed - we've had one of those locally just recently.

 

There's even a Youtube video showing the cache being placed so there's pretty much zero chance that it has zero finds since publication is the result of somehing as simple as bad coordinates.

[+Team Microdot]

What about this cache? Would you assume it were missing with 55 DNFs (and even more notes posted which I'm sure included some searches) before it was ever found? The CO posted many notes before the first find but hasn't posted much recently. I'd bet that ti's still there but with the DNFs posted, many still assume it's not there. Of the 99 finds, it's my guess that some of them aren't valid finds, meaning that there should probably be more than the 317 DNFs posted, due to many people not logging their DNFs as well as some bogus finds. The most recent found it log is just an example. Having found it, it's awfully hard to imagine there's no log in there, based on the hide.

 

Scrolling through the logs, there was a roughly 12 month period of DNF's after which the CO logged that it was missing and replaced it.

 

How long it had been missing for we'll probably never know. Could have been 12 months, could have been less.

[+narcissa]

What about this cache? Would you assume it were missing with 55 DNFs (and even more notes posted which I'm sure included some searches) before it was ever found? The CO posted many notes before the first find but hasn't posted much recently. I'd bet that ti's still there but with the DNFs posted, many still assume it's not there. Of the 99 finds, it's my guess that some of them aren't valid finds, meaning that there should probably be more than the 317 DNFs posted, due to many people not logging their DNFs as well as some bogus finds. The most recent found it log is just an example. Having found it, it's awfully hard to imagine there's no log in there, based on the hide.

 

Good example of the importance of context. It's a difficulty 4.5 so DNFs should be expected. It's simply foolhardy to look at the blue frown alone and assume the cache is gone.

 

No harm can possibly come from writing more descriptive logs to add better context to DNFs.

[+coachstahly]

What about this cache? Would you assume it were missing with 55 DNFs (and even more notes posted which I'm sure included some searches) before it was ever found? The CO posted many notes before the first find but hasn't posted much recently. I'd bet that ti's still there but with the DNFs posted, many still assume it's not there. Of the 99 finds, it's my guess that some of them aren't valid finds, meaning that there should probably be more than the 317 DNFs posted, due to many people not logging their DNFs as well as some bogus finds. The most recent found it log is just an example. Having found it, it's awfully hard to imagine there's no log in there, based on the hide.

 

Scrolling through the logs, there was a roughly 12 month period of DNF's after which the CO logged that it was missing and replaced it.

 

How long it had been missing for we'll probably never know. Could have been 12 months, could have been less.

One time missing in 11 1/2 years. I'd say that the DNFs are more an indication that it's a hard hide rather than a cache that's MIA frequently. Knowing what the hide is, I'm scratching my head to figure out how it went missing in the first place. That being said, I will always assume it's there rather than assume it's missing. The same went with the other CO's shelter hides around the city as well.

[+thebruce0]

What about more than 100 DNFs from a single cacher on an unfound cache?

Knowing the cache owner, who occasionally (and secretively) checks on it, it's pretty much 99.9% guaranteed that the cache is there Yet it's now at almost 400 DNFs.

[+dprovan]

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.

In a scenario where some hits "Go" (the app actually uses "Start") and then something unrelated causes them to abort, I don't see how posting a DNF is inherently helpful. If the reason for the abort was due to a flooded river, or too many muggles near GZ those are reasons that someone else might encountered and a DNF (with a description why the search was aborted) could be helpful. However, if the abort was due to a call from home, or even a downpour of rain those are scenarios, a DNF really doesn't help anyone else.

You say this as if you're arguing with me, but your points are entirely consistent with my position. I specifically said it was only inherently helpful if you searched. Deciding to search and then changing your mind on the way is no more a search than sitting at home and deciding not to go at all.

[+wmpastor]

I skimmed through part of this thread and also read a number of posts. I didn't see this issue covered.

 

We don't know what the hamster algorithm is, but quantity of DNFs ideally is not the sole factor. The expertise of the searcher, loosely correlated to number of finds, could be relevant, as discussed, but suppose a group of six novices goes hunting, 4 post DNF, one posts NM, and one posts NA?! This is not a far-fetched hypothetical!

[+dprovan]

Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing.

Nope. There are, of course, many cases where it's an excellent guess that the cache is missing based on preponderance of evidence that might be predominantly DNF logs, but I deny that there's ever a case where a DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing.

 

The key difference is that I consider it rude to say to the CO "your cache is missing" instead of "don't you think this evidence suggests your cache is missing?" and I think people should keep that in mind even when they don't think the CO is listening.

[+thebruce0]

Note: the wording is the cache may be missing.

Doesn't change the gist, but let's not start arguments over inferring the wrong intent of comments.

 

I would agree there's a point at which it's more feasible to assume that a DNF (multiple) may indicate a cache is missing.

As a CO, and as a finder.

At no point should a DNF by a non-finder ever be interpreted to mean that a cache IS missing.

[+justintim1999]

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.

+1

[+bflentje]

To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences.

 

I understand your point but my approach is the opposite.. to log EVERY VALID DNF, no matter how mundane, pushing any automated system to its tipping point. Perhaps only then will it be addressed properly.

[+NanCycle]

I skimmed through part of this thread and also read a number of posts. I didn't see this issue covered.

 

We don't know what the hamster algorithm is, but quantity of DNFs ideally is not the sole factor. The expertise of the searcher, loosely correlated to number of finds, could be relevant, as discussed, but suppose a group of six novices goes hunting, 4 post DNF, one posts NM, and one posts NA?! This is not a far-fetched hypothetical!

 

You forgot about the one(s) that post Found It because they found the location but there was nothing there.

[+Team Microdot]

What about this cache? Would you assume it were missing with 55 DNFs (and even more notes posted which I'm sure included some searches) before it was ever found? The CO posted many notes before the first find but hasn't posted much recently. I'd bet that ti's still there but with the DNFs posted, many still assume it's not there. Of the 99 finds, it's my guess that some of them aren't valid finds, meaning that there should probably be more than the 317 DNFs posted, due to many people not logging their DNFs as well as some bogus finds. The most recent found it log is just an example. Having found it, it's awfully hard to imagine there's no log in there, based on the hide.

 

Scrolling through the logs, there was a roughly 12 month period of DNF's after which the CO logged that it was missing and replaced it.

 

How long it had been missing for we'll probably never know. Could have been 12 months, could have been less.

One time missing in 11 1/2 years.

 

That we know of.

 

I think you said yourself that a number of the found logs were questionable.

 

And it could have been missing for anything up to a whole year.

[+Team Microdot]

Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing.

Nope. There are, of course, many cases where it's an excellent guess that the cache is missing based on preponderance of evidence that might be predominantly DNF logs, but I deny that there's ever a case where a DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing.

 

The key difference is that I consider it rude to say to the CO "your cache is missing" instead of "don't you think this evidence suggests your cache is missing?" and I think people should keep that in mind even when they don't think the CO is listening.

 

Well nobody could ever deny your ability to split hairs

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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.

If everyone does it this way then we might have 10 or 20 non-logged DNFs on a cache before someone finally posts one. The cache owner won't even take a look until the 3rd DNF is posted.

 

What is helpful to other cachers is to post about your experience, not keep it a secret.

[+dprovan]

Note: the wording is the cache may be missing.

Doesn't change the gist, but let's not start arguments over inferring the wrong intent of comments.

I think it changes the gist a great deal. There's a big difference between "your cache may be missing" and "I know you cache is missing." It's the difference between being accurate and being arrogant.

 

I would agree there's a point at which it's more feasible to assume that a DNF (multiple) may indicate a cache is missing.

Meh. I agree you're not wrong to say this, but it makes more sense to me -- and I think conveys the idea better to anyone else -- to say that the evidence makes the conclusion reasonable without singling out the DNF count as somehow more definitive than any other evidence.

 

Well nobody could ever deny your ability to split hairs

It's an important distinction, so I'm sorry you don't understand it.

[+Team Microdot]

Well nobody could ever deny your ability to split hairs

It's an important distinction, so I'm sorry you don't understand it.

 

I'm sorry you felt any real compulsion to make such a miniscule distinction.

[+thebruce0]

Note: the wording is the cache may be missing.

Doesn't change the gist, but let's not start arguments over inferring the wrong intent of comments.

I think it changes the gist a great deal. There's a big difference between "your cache may be missing" and "I know you cache is missing." It's the difference between being accurate and being arrogant.

 

I would agree there's a point at which it's more feasible to assume that a DNF (multiple) may indicate a cache is missing.

Meh. I agree you're not wrong to say this, but it makes more sense to me -- and I think conveys the idea better to anyone else -- to say that the evidence makes the conclusion reasonable without singling out the DNF count as somehow more definitive than any other evidence.

Ok.

My point was that no one is saying that a DNF ever means a cache is missing. That is arrogance (especially if it's written in the log). Unless of course there's verified knowledge that the cache is not as it's intended to be found.

It was all about whether a finder or CO can look at one or more DNFs and presume that a cache may be missing. My comment was responding to your "but I deny that there's ever a case where a DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing." I don't recall anyone saying that, and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

[+dprovan]

It was all about whether a finder or CO can look at one or more DNFs and presume that a cache may be missing. My comment was responding to your "but I deny that there's ever a case where a DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing." I don't recall anyone saying that, and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

"DNF = missing" literally means a single DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing. I was just spelling out what Team Microdot said symbolically.

[+thebruce0]

It was all about whether a finder or CO can look at one or more DNFs and presume that a cache may be missing. My comment was responding to your "but I deny that there's ever a case where a DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing." I don't recall anyone saying that, and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

"DNF = missing" literally means a single DNF is equivalent to the cache being missing. I was just spelling out what Team Microdot said symbolically.

 

Yes. Q: "Personally I reckon there absolutely IS a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that DNF really does = missing. "

Indeed, there is a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that [one or more] DNFs means the cache is missing.

As a finder, that's our prerogative to assume.

As a CO, that's a judgement call to make.

Making that assumption is not arrogant.

But as the poster of the DNF, it certainly can be, without having any confirmation in some manner that it is missing.

 

Or in other words, posting a DNF stating that the cache is missing is the problem. But not assuming that the existence of DNFs means the cache is missing.

 

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.

 

Making any assumption without verification by someone who knows is problematic and can be seen as arrogant.

 

OP: Does a DNF [itself] mean a cache needs maintenance? Of course not! There are far too many additional factors before the CO can make that call, but as finders, whatever we decide about a cache status solely affects our own experience in finding it, should we choose to make the attempt.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

Indeed it would

[+dprovan]

Indeed, there is a point at which it's perfectly reasonable to assume that [one or more] DNFs means the cache is missing.

I said this myself and then explained why I thought there were better ways to put it.

 

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.

Oh, geeze, just when I thought we agreed even though you seem to want to deny it. If you get to the point where you're going to assume a cache is missing based entirely on reading the logs, then you already believe that there's no point in going to GZ to look for it. Yes, you still say in your NM, "The logs make me think the cache is missing" and not "the cache is missing". The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

[+thebruce0]

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.

Oh, geeze, just when I thought we agreed even though you seem to want to deny it. If you get to the point where you're going to assume a cache is missing based entirely on reading the logs, then you already believe that there's no point in going to GZ to look for it. Yes, you still say in your NM, "The logs make me think the cache is missing" and not "the cache is missing". The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

I'm not sure what you're reading into my comment. I said it's not good to post a NM based on DNFs without visiting. So yes, 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.

 

The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

Uhh... so if I choose not to look for a cache based on observation of many DNFs, I should couch log my choice not to even go and search for it?? Surely you can't be serious... Please tell me I'm misunderstanding that part of your comment...

 

I hope what you meant to say was that the worst thing you could do was to come to the conclusion that a cache may be missing, then decide TO go search for it to have a first hand experience, and if still not finding it then keep quiet about your attempt. THAT is exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books. (presuming of course your DNF log doesn't say "the cache is missing" rather than merely describing your failed attempt to find it)

If you do make the attempt and don't find it, posting the non-presumtuous DNF is the right thing to do.

Edited April 27, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

 

How is that conclusion obvious?

[+Furrhan]

Here's my two cents worth.

One DNF =/= missing. People miss caches sometimes when they're hunting.

When you start to see four or five DNFs in a row though, that's when you should have second thoughts and get the CO to check the cache.

Usually if I don't find a cache I'll wait a while and watch the logs to see if anyone else finds it. If they do I try again before logging a DNF.

[+thebruce0]

Here's my two cents worth.

One DNF =/= missing.

 

Actually no, that's as presumptuous as DNF = Missing. Correctly, DNF = Did Not Find. A person may post a DNF, not assuming anything about the cache state, and indeed the cache may actually be missing (even if it's the first DNF after a Find). But there's no way anyone can know until the CO (or someone else who can confirm) verifies it as missing.

 

One DNF =/= missing is like logging a DNF saying "I know the cache is there, but I couldn't find it." How do you know if you didn't find it? It's no different than "I know the cache isn't there, so I couldn't find it."

 

Just post a DNF and describing your experience without assuming anything; it's simple, really. Let the CO decide what DNFs imply, and let followup cachers decide for themselves how to interpret any DNFs they see.

 

Just like "Needs Maintenance" isn't "May Need Maintenance". The log itself implies the log poster knows that a cache needs maintenance. That 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).

 

...although now that there's no way to describe non-canned NM reasons in a NM log using the web-based logging method, that point is perhaps moot

Edited April 27, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Furrhan]

True, thebruce0. To clarify, what I meant was that I don't interpret a single DNF as meaning the cache is missing, just that it wasn't found. It may be that it is missing but it could also just be that the poster didn't find it. On the flip side, however, I tend to interpret a string of DNFs as an indication that the cache may no longer be in place.

[+narcissa]

True, thebruce0. To clarify, what I meant was that I don't interpret a single DNF as meaning the cache is missing, just that it wasn't found. It may be that it is missing but it could also just be that the poster didn't find it. On the flip side, however, I tend to interpret a string of DNFs as an indication that the cache may no longer be in place.

 

Do you read them before interpreting them that way?

[+Furrhan]

I usually do, yes, and there are exceptions to how I interpret them. For instance, if there's a DNF from a cacher who's visited the cache before or if the poster has had big hints from PAF or the CO then I'd say that's probably an indication that it might not be there. I'd be more likely to consider that as meaning it was missing than one from someone that just said they hunted for five minutes and gave up because a muggle came along.

 

Likewise, if there's a really clever cache with a string of DNFs then I'd consider it more likely that the cache was well hidden than missing but I'd read the logs to make sure, especially if there were plenty of "found" logs before the DNFs.

[+dprovan]

I'm not sure what you're reading into my comment. I said it's not good to post a NM based on DNFs without visiting. So yes, 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.

You just explained to me that the DNFs logs were credible evidence that the cache might be missing. Does that credible evidence suddenly vanish when I go to post an NM?

 

The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

Uhh... so if I choose not to look for a cache based on observation of many DNFs, I should couch log my choice not to even go and search for it?? Surely you can't be serious... Please tell me I'm misunderstanding that part of your comment...

Nope, you've understood it perfectly, and I don't understand why you don't agree with it. The scenario is simple and happens all the time: the last person to visit GZ should have posted an NM but didn't. With that last DNF tipping the balance, other geocachers will see the DNF logs and decide not to go look because they've reached precisely the conclusion you've been arguing they should reach. If we follow the must-visit-before-posting-NM rule, no NM is ever filed unless, by chance, someone accidentally goes to GZ because they didn't look at the logs.

 

If there was any particular reason to think the must-visit rule actually had a purpose, we might have to put up with this glitch it causes, but must-visit doesn't make sense to begin with for exactly the reasons you and everyone else is arguing in this thread that lots of DNFs are excellent evidence that the cache is missing.

 

The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

How is that conclusion obvious?

Earlier in the conversation, thebruce0 asserted that conclusion was valid, and I agreed with him. So, in other words, it's obvious because the hypothetical we're discussing includes the fact that it's obvious. It's cute that you always try to disagree with me even when it leaves you arguing on both sides of the question at once.

Edited April 27, 2017 by dprovan

[+L0ne.R]

True, thebruce0. To clarify, what I meant was that I don't interpret a single DNF as meaning the cache is missing, just that it wasn't found. It may be that it is missing but it could also just be that the poster didn't find it. On the flip side, however, I tend to interpret a string of DNFs as an indication that the cache may no longer be in place.

 

Same here.

 

And I may interpret a string of DNFs with a high D-rating as a cache I do not wish to bother looking for.

[+Team Microdot]

The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

How is that conclusion obvious?

Earlier in the conversation, thebruce0 asserted that conclusion was valid, and I agreed with him. So, in other words, it's obvious because the hypothetical we're discussing includes the fact that it's obvious. It's cute that you always try to disagree with me even when it leaves you arguing on both sides of the question at once.

 

Which question do you think I'm arguing on both sides of at once?

[+thebruce0]

I'm not sure what you're reading into my comment. I said it's not good to post a NM based on DNFs without visiting. So yes, 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.

You just explained to me that the DNFs logs were credible evidence that the cache might be missing. Does that credible evidence suddenly vanish when I go to post an NM?

 

If you go and make a find attempt despite there being enough DNFs to make you believe the cache to be missing, and you don't find it, 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. I do not think that a NM should be posted just because you went and couldn't find a cache you thought to be missing, let alone state as if you know that "the cache is missing". You don't know. You only couldn't find it. Since you don't know it's missing, you merely based your attempt to search for it on your interpretation of the DNF(s), so your DNF and possible NM should merely reflect your experience without any assumptions (at least without disclaiming it as your belief, not a certainty: "I think the cache may be missing" in a DNF is not the same as "the cache is missing" - the former prompts the reader to judge your ability to find caches, the latter implies first-hand knowledge of its state).

 

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.

 

{A} The worst thing you can do is come to the obvious conclusion that the cache is missing and decide not to waste your time going to look for it, but then keep quiet about your decision. That's exactly the thinking that leaves so many missing caches on the books.

Uhh... so if I choose not to look for a cache based on observation of many DNFs, I should couch log my choice not to even go and search for it?? Surely you can't be serious... Please tell me I'm misunderstanding that part of your comment...

Nope, you've understood it perfectly, and I don't understand why you don't agree with it. The scenario is simple and happens all the time: {B} the last person to visit GZ should have posted an NM but didn't.

This is not what you said above.

1. This person in has visited GZ. They didn't decide "not to waste their time going to look for it", as you said in {A}, because of DNFs.

2. Why should they have posted the NM after their DNF? Did they find it? Do they have a legitimate, reasonable concern for the CO to go and verify the cache location and findability? How do they know the cache or its listing Needs Maintenance?

 

With that last DNF tipping the balance, other geocachers will see the DNF logs and decide not to go look because they've reached precisely the conclusion you've been arguing they should reach. If we follow the must-visit-before-posting-NM rule, no NM is ever filed unless, by chance, someone accidentally goes to GZ because they didn't look at the logs.

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.

 

If there was any particular reason to think the must-visit rule actually had a purpose, we might have to put up with this glitch it causes, but must-visit doesn't make sense to begin with for exactly the reasons you and everyone else is arguing in this thread that lots of DNFs are excellent evidence that the cache is missing.

 

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)

 

Does a DNF (alone) mean a cache needs maintenance? Of course not!

Does a DNF mean a cache is missing, or is findable? Definitely neither!

Does a DNF mean that a NM should be posted? Certainly not!

Should a DNF or NM log be posted without any first-hand experience after attempting to find the cache? Most assuredly no!

Should a NM only be posted after a Find? Nope! After a first-hand find attempt? Yep!

Should a NM have a reasonably valid first-hand explanation as to why the poster believes the owner should tend to it? Absolutely!

Edited April 28, 2017 by thebruce0

[+WearyTraveler]

I would never assume a cache is missing based solely on looking at the numbers of DNFs.

 

However, based loosely on the d/t rating and /or the DNFer's find count, I'd make a decision whether to search or not, based on the time available etc... basically, if a 1/1 had a couple of DNFs including experienced cachers, I'd assume to myself that it's probably not there. Would I make a NM or NA without visiting? Assuredly not.

 

But I make it a habit of pinging the CO in cases of DNF strings (including one of mine) and asking him to verify. GRCs and LPCs especially. There are just so many places to hide a GRC... even a sneaky GRC.

 

To me, NM means that I've actually found the cache / remnants and the cache is in need on maintenance, not archival.

 

If no owner maintenance then the cache should probably be archived, adopted, or soomething.

 

But - not finding a cache means just that - I looked but didn't find it.

[+justintim1999]

Here's my two cents worth.

One DNF =/= missing. People miss caches sometimes when they're hunting.

When you start to see four or five DNFs in a row though, that's when you should have second thoughts and get the CO to check the cache.

Usually if I don't find a cache I'll wait a while and watch the logs to see if anyone else finds it. If they do I try again before logging a DNF.

 

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.

[+thebruce0]

Here's my two cents worth.

One DNF =/= missing. People miss caches sometimes when they're hunting.

When you start to see four or five DNFs in a row though, that's when you should have second thoughts and get the CO to check the cache.

Usually if I don't find a cache I'll wait a while and watch the logs to see if anyone else finds it. If they do I try again before logging a DNF.

 

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.

enh, I'd say that's a case by case scenario. As a finder, if I know it's a hard to find cache, I wouldn't demand that the CO keep re-checking it every 4 or 5 finds; I'd realize that the DNFs are an indication of how hard it is to find. The threshold is a little higher to the point at which I might inquire of the CO when they last verified the cache is findable (or just posting a note/OM log).

 

In other words, as a finder, the point at which I'd hope/expect to see an owner verify a cache's findability after 1 or more DNFs entirely depends on my interpretation of the cache's difficulty to find and the content of said DNF logs. Because again, a DNF merely means that it wasn't found - not that it is or is not there.

 

For me that threshold (ignoring log content for now) may be 1 DNF (say for a 1/1 LPC), or 200 (Do you like gardening?)

[+Team Microdot]

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?

[+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.

[+thebruce0]

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.

[+dprovan]

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?

 

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.

[+dprovan]

But I make it a habit of pinging the CO in cases of DNF strings (including one of mine) and asking him to verify. GRCs and LPCs especially. There are just so many places to hide a GRC... even a sneaky GRC.

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.