Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
barefootjeff

Demonising the DNF

1055 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I see the latest iteration of the Help Centre page 3.2 When a cache needs maintenance says to select the NA option if:

 

You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

Isn't that a bit over the top, especially if it's just a few DNFs and no NMs?

 

Some caches, especially D2 or higher, can be a bit tricky to find and will generate DNFs even if the cache isn't missing, then of course there's all the DNFs (like nearby muggles, approaching storms, couldn't climb the tree, etc.) that have nothing to do with the cache status. Or is the CO now supposed to respond to each and every DNF regardless?

Edited by barefootjeff
0

Share this post


Link to post

If the two logs are now equivalent, they should just get rid of the DNF option.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see the latest iteration of the Help Centre page 3.2 When a cache needs maintenance says to select the NA option if:

 

You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

Isn't that a bit over the top, especially if it's just a few DNFs and no NMs?

 

Some caches, especially D2 or higher, can be a bit tricky to find and will generate DNFs even if the cache isn't missing, then of course there's all the DNFs (like nearby muggles, approaching storms, couldn't climb the tree, etc.) that have nothing to do with the cache status. Or is the CO now supposed to respond to each and every DNF regardless?

The difference between "several" and "few" seems obvious to me.

 

In a related Help Center article, the maintenance expectations are pretty clearly marked out:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

 

I don't see "responding to each and every DNF" as one of the requirements. Certainly by the time an NA log type hits the Listing page, it's probably a good idea to check in and somehow explain the situation (i.e. log error, cache will get checked on soon, etc.).

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see the latest iteration of the Help Centre page 3.2 When a cache needs maintenance says to select the NA option if:

 

You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

Isn't that a bit over the top, especially if it's just a few DNFs and no NMs?

 

Some caches, especially D2 or higher, can be a bit tricky to find and will generate DNFs even if the cache isn't missing, then of course there's all the DNFs (like nearby muggles, approaching storms, couldn't climb the tree, etc.) that have nothing to do with the cache status. Or is the CO now supposed to respond to each and every DNF regardless?

The difference between "several" and "few" seems obvious to me.

"Several", to me, implies more than one, and maybe more than two. Certainly not the same as "many" or any more than "a few". I'd have thought the minimum requirement for an NA under these circumstances would be at least one NM that's been outstanding for several (there's that word again) months, not just some DNFs.

 

In a related Help Center article, the maintenance expectations are pretty clearly marked out:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

 

I don't see "responding to each and every DNF" as one of the requirements. Certainly by the time an NA log type hits the Listing page, it's probably a good idea to check in and somehow explain the situation (i.e. log error, cache will get checked on soon, etc.).

 

I'd really like to be preventing the NA from happening in the first place rather than responding to it after the fact, but telling people to log NA just because there's been several preceding DNFs isn't conducive to that.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know. Hypothetically speaking, I'd say that a team of 20 cachers scouring an area for an ammo can would be sufficient to conclude that a cache as missing.

 

Personally, it sounds like my approach is similar to yours. I look at the history of DNF's and judge whether an NA is warranted or not. A handful of DNF's isn't much to conclude anything in my opinion, particularly if the Difficulty rating is high and/or the container is a micro or smaller.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Around here, if you log an NA before an NM has been neglected for a month or more, the reviewer will take no action at all.

I've said this before - I'm yet to see a cache archived from underneath a CO who is present and responding to logs on their cache (even if they aren't racing out checking caches), there is a lot of lee-way built into this system, so I wouldn't get too worried by the way the help centre article is written.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Around here, if you log an NA before an NM has been neglected for a month or more, the reviewer will take no action at all.

I've said this before - I'm yet to see a cache archived from underneath a CO who is present and responding to logs on their cache (even if they aren't racing out checking caches), there is a lot of lee-way built into this system, so I wouldn't get too worried by the way the help centre article is written.

I'm not especially worried that this will lead to caches being archived due to just "several DNFs", at least I hope not, rather it's the mindset behind it that's unsettling.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To me multiple dnf's mean one of four things.

 

It's a difficult cache to find

 

The cords are off significantly.

 

The cache was not re-placed in the original location.

 

The cache is missing.

 

Three of the four should be addressed by the cache owner if presented with multiple dnf's

 

The use of the dnf is important, especially to the cache owner. It's a yellow light telling the owner that there may be an issue with the cache. Don't hesitate to post one if you searched for the cache and didn't find it. Let the cache owner, if they're paying attention, worry about if and when the cache needs to be checked up on.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Around here, if you log an NA before an NM has been neglected for a month or more, the reviewer will take no action at all.

I've said this before - I'm yet to see a cache archived from underneath a CO who is present and responding to logs on their cache (even if they aren't racing out checking caches), there is a lot of lee-way built into this system, so I wouldn't get too worried by the way the help centre article is written.

I'm not especially worried that this will lead to caches being archived due to just "several DNFs", at least I hope not, rather it's the mindset behind it that's unsettling.

 

To me it is problematic because I tend to use DNFs quite freely and I rarely intend for them to be anything more than an account of my experience. I continue to find it astonishing and a bit insulting that the system is now designed to assume context in my DNF logs that makes them no different than NM. It's also confusing. If both logs are now a negative hit against the cache, why have both? It also discourages people from using DNF in ways that are genuinely helpful. Understanding why someone else failed to reach a tricky cache can help others with their planning. Using DNF was also a nice way for me to flag caches that I mean to return to, but I can't use it like that anymore without causing problems and misunderstandings for fellow geocachers. Writing a note is fine but it doesn't indicate that an attempt was made.

 

It's just so hamfisted and does nothing to really address quality issues. The poor quality that is really overwhelming the game is caused by throw-downs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Around here, if you log an NA before an NM has been neglected for a month or more, the reviewer will take no action at all.

I've said this before - I'm yet to see a cache archived from underneath a CO who is present and responding to logs on their cache (even if they aren't racing out checking caches), there is a lot of lee-way built into this system, so I wouldn't get too worried by the way the help centre article is written.

I'm not especially worried that this will lead to caches being archived due to just "several DNFs", at least I hope not, rather it's the mindset behind it that's unsettling.

 

To me it is problematic because I tend to use DNFs quite freely and I rarely intend for them to be anything more than an account of my experience. I continue to find it astonishing and a bit insulting that the system is now designed to assume context in my DNF logs that makes them no different than NM. It's also confusing. If both logs are now a negative hit against the cache, why have both? It also discourages people from using DNF in ways that are genuinely helpful. Understanding why someone else failed to reach a tricky cache can help others with their planning. Using DNF was also a nice way for me to flag caches that I mean to return to, but I can't use it like that anymore without causing problems and misunderstandings for fellow geocachers. Writing a note is fine but it doesn't indicate that an attempt was made.

 

It's just so hamfisted and does nothing to really address quality issues. The poor quality that is really overwhelming the game is caused by throw-downs.

 

I've got to believe that dnf's were intended to help cache owners identify containers that may have gone missing. Dnf's shouldn't have any effect on the health of a cache as long as they are addressed when necessary. A dnf by itself means nothing. The big issue is how many in a row without owner intervention constitutes a problem.

 

I know I've said this a million times. To the responsible cache owner all of this is a non issue.

1

Share this post


Link to post

The poor quality that is really overwhelming the game is caused by throw-downs.

 

And people who throw down because they can't face a DNF and are happy to pretend they found a cache.

 

And CO's who encourage throwdowns instead of DNF's because they have more caches than they can be bothered to maintain.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I find that Help Center article confusing. Especially when it says to log a NA if

"You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response."

 

 

But then later says

 

"Do not select this option if:

You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” log."

 

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

 

- Most of the time, if you didn't find it, simply log a DNF.

- If you believe the cache is likely missing, and there have been several DNF logs with no owner response for some time, it may be appropriate to log a NM log.

- If a NM log has been raised and no owner response for some time, then NA may be appropriate.

 

DNFs should not be demonised. 99% of the time when I log a DNF, I'm not assuming it is missing, I just could not find it. Very occasionally I will feel that this cache could use checking on, e.g.

- It has many DNFs (inconsistent with history of this cache and/or the rating) over several months.

- Someone who has found the cache before can't find it

 

In which case I'll log a NM, asking for the CO to please check the cache.

 

If the NM has already been done, and no response from the CO to that (for a month or more), then I might log NA.

 

Likewise, reviewers use their judgement when they check on caches and decide to disable a cache due to "might be missing".

1

Share this post


Link to post

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

 

- Most of the time, if you didn't find it, simply log a DNF.

- If you believe the cache is likely missing, and there have been several DNF logs with no owner response for some time, it may be appropriate to log a NM log.

- If a NM log has been raised and no owner response for some time, then NA may be appropriate.

 

DNFs should not be demonised. 99% of the time when I log a DNF, I'm not assuming it is missing, I just could not find it. Very occasionally I will feel that this cache could use checking on, e.g.

- It has many DNFs (inconsistent with history of this cache and/or the rating) over several months.

- Someone who has found the cache before can't find it

 

In which case I'll log a NM, asking for the CO to please check the cache.

 

If the NM has already been done, and no response from the CO to that (for a month or more), then I might log NA.

 

 

That's exactly how I use DNF/NM/NA logs too.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

I find that Help Center article confusing. Especially when it says to log a NA if

"You couldn't find a cache and it has several Didnt Find It (DNF) or Needs Maintenance logs on the cache page with no cache owner response."

 

 

But then later says

 

"Do not select this option if:

You didn't find the cache use a Didnt Find It (DNF) log."

 

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

 

- Most of the time, if you didn't find it, simply log a DNF.

- If you believe the cache is likely missing, and there have been several DNF logs with no owner response for some time, it may be appropriate to log a NM log.

- If a NM log has been raised and no owner response for some time, then NA may be appropriate.

 

DNFs should not be demonised. 99% of the time when I log a DNF, I'm not assuming it is missing, I just could not find it. Very occasionally I will feel that this cache could use checking on, e.g.

- It has many DNFs (inconsistent with history of this cache and/or the rating) over several months.

- Someone who has found the cache before can't find it

 

In which case I'll log a NM, asking for the CO to please check the cache.

 

If the NM has already been done, and no response from the CO to that (for a month or more), then I might log NA.

 

Likewise, reviewers use their judgement when they check on caches and decide to disable a cache due to "might be missing".

 

Here is what I find a little confusing. This is taken from the Geocaching 101 page.

 

What should I do if I discover that a cache has gone missing?

 

"If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" log so that the cache owner is notified. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Didn't find it" logs should check to see that their cache has not been removed."

 

"As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache page has an unusual number of "Didn't find it" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

 

All this makes sense except the part about letting your local reviewer know or contacting them. Here is where the NM or NA log should be mentioned.

 

I see your point and I think the progression could be explained more clearly.

 

Post a dnf first. If the cache has multiple dnfs and you think it's missing post a Needs Maintenance. If you didn't find it, think it's missing and it already has a Needs Maintenance on it, all of witch has been unanswered buy the cache owner for some time post a Needs Archived.

 

I also agree that the stigma associated with dnfs needs to be corrected.

Edited by justintim1999
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

 

- Most of the time, if you didn't find it, simply log a DNF.

- If you believe the cache is likely missing, and there have been several DNF logs with no owner response for some time, it may be appropriate to log a NM log.

- If a NM log has been raised and no owner response for some time, then NA may be appropriate.

 

DNFs should not be demonised. 99% of the time when I log a DNF, I'm not assuming it is missing, I just could not find it. Very occasionally I will feel that this cache could use checking on, e.g.

- It has many DNFs (inconsistent with history of this cache and/or the rating) over several months.

- Someone who has found the cache before can't find it

 

In which case I'll log a NM, asking for the CO to please check the cache.

 

If the NM has already been done, and no response from the CO to that (for a month or more), then I might log NA.

 

 

That's exactly how I use DNF/NM/NA logs too.

 

This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

 

- Most of the time, if you didn't find it, simply log a DNF.

- If you believe the cache is likely missing, and there have been several DNF logs with no owner response for some time, it may be appropriate to log a NM log.

- If a NM log has been raised and no owner response for some time, then NA may be appropriate.

 

DNFs should not be demonised. 99% of the time when I log a DNF, I'm not assuming it is missing, I just could not find it. Very occasionally I will feel that this cache could use checking on, e.g.

- It has many DNFs (inconsistent with history of this cache and/or the rating) over several months.

- Someone who has found the cache before can't find it

 

In which case I'll log a NM, asking for the CO to please check the cache.

 

If the NM has already been done, and no response from the CO to that (for a month or more), then I might log NA.

 

 

That's exactly how I use DNF/NM/NA logs too.

 

This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.

 

That's a shame. Every log, when used properly, has a useful purpose.

 

Instead of continuing to set the example and use dnfs correctly, why do a 180 and not use them at all?

 

The problem isn't posting dnfs, it's how they are perceived and handled. As a cache owner I welcome dnfs because two or three of them tells me there may be something wrong with my cache, something I'll want to fix.

3

Share this post


Link to post

...I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache... I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.

 

I hope you're not trying to be community spirited in taking this course of action because if you are then that's backfiring massively because you're choosing to withhold information that's valuable to the whole community :(

1

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of continuing to set the example and use dnfs correctly, why do a 180 and not use them at all?

Perhaps you missed this:

 

This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.
0

Share this post


Link to post
...I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache... I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.
I hope you're not trying to be community spirited in taking this course of action because if you are then that's backfiring massively because you're choosing to withhold information that's valuable to the whole community :(
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

0

Share this post


Link to post
...I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache... I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.
I hope you're not trying to be community spirited in taking this course of action because if you are then that's backfiring massively because you're choosing to withhold information that's valuable to the whole community :(
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

Bold - not so much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of continuing to set the example and use dnfs correctly, why do a 180 and not use them at all?

Perhaps you missed this:

 

This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.

 

What did I miss? Did I read something wrong? I though narcissa said she's no longer going to log dnfs?

 

Were you referring to the nagging messages that really only nag cache owners who don't care anyway?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I find that Help Center article confusing. Especially when it says to log a NA if

"You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response."

 

 

But then later says

 

"Do not select this option if:

You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” log."

 

 

My understanding - and what I think this is trying to say is:

- snip -

I sorta agree. :)

It's confusing for us, so imagine that new person who'd actually take the time to look through the Help Center for what they believe should be helpful information, and instead find things conflicting.

- Our interpretation of what's written isn't a fix, the wording needs to be clearer.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Were you referring to the nagging messages that really only nag cache owners who don't care anyway?

 

Like a tree falling in the forest? :)

I still can't see the problem!

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Perhaps you missed this:

 

This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.

 

I realize this wasn't done out of malice, but splicing unrelated comments together can create the illusion of a conversation that doesn't exist and in this case it puts me in a difficult situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

 

Will you be sending DNF messages or emails to the COs in lieu of posting DNF logs? Some of us do care.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps you missed this:
This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.
I realize this wasn't done out of malice, but splicing unrelated comments together can create the illusion of a conversation that doesn't exist and in this case it puts me in a difficult situation.
I apologize for any miscommunication. I thought justintim1999's question was clearly answered in the part of your message that he quoted, so I just tried to emphasize the relevant phrase from your message. I did not intend to mischaracterize the nature of the conversation.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Will you be sending DNF messages or emails to the COs in lieu of posting DNF logs? Some of us do care.
FWIW, posting a Note log will serve the task of communicating with humans, without triggering automated responses that ignore the context/content of DNF logs.
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

 

DNFs are not worthless to me!

I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it.

A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops.

If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information.

 

Who cares about the nag messages?

 

They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches.

They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
1

Share this post


Link to post

Around here, if you log an NA before an NM has been neglected for a month or more, the reviewer will take no action at all.

I've said this before - I'm yet to see a cache archived from underneath a CO who is present and responding to logs on their cache (even if they aren't racing out checking caches), there is a lot of lee-way built into this system, so I wouldn't get too worried by the way the help centre article is written.

I'm not especially worried that this will lead to caches being archived due to just "several DNFs", at least I hope not, rather it's the mindset behind it that's unsettling.

 

To me it is problematic because I tend to use DNFs quite freely and I rarely intend for them to be anything more than an account of my experience. I continue to find it astonishing and a bit insulting that the system is now designed to assume context in my DNF logs that makes them no different than NM. It's also confusing. If both logs are now a negative hit against the cache, why have both? It also discourages people from using DNF in ways that are genuinely helpful. Understanding why someone else failed to reach a tricky cache can help others with their planning. Using DNF was also a nice way for me to flag caches that I mean to return to, but I can't use it like that anymore without causing problems and misunderstandings for fellow geocachers. Writing a note is fine but it doesn't indicate that an attempt was made.

 

It's just so hamfisted and does nothing to really address quality issues. The poor quality that is really overwhelming the game is caused by throw-downs.

 

I've got to believe that dnf's were intended to help cache owners identify containers that may have gone missing. Dnf's shouldn't have any effect on the health of a cache as long as they are addressed when necessary. A dnf by itself means nothing. The big issue is how many in a row without owner intervention constitutes a problem.

 

I know I've said this a million times. To the responsible cache owner all of this is a non issue.

 

A responsible cache owner that likes to create creative but difficult to find caches might consider it an issue if they're constantly being nagged by email messages they have to respond to in order to prevent their well maintained caches from being archived. It might even discourage a responsible cache owner from placing the types of caches they prefer (and a type that many finders may enjoy.) With the proliferation of power trails, and park-n-grabs finding caches listings for caches which present a mental challenge is becoming more difficult. Not every cache should be an easy find.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

 

DNFs are not worthless to me!

I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it.

A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops.

If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information.

 

Who cares about the nag messages?

 

They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches.

They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are.

 

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

 

DNFs are not worthless to me!

I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it.

A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops.

If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information.

 

Who cares about the nag messages?

 

They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches.

They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are.

 

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

Give me a break!

1

Share this post


Link to post

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

If you don't post DNF logs, then you're withholding information that's valuable to the whole community.

 

If you do post DNF logs, then you may be contributing to triggering troublesome nag messages simply because you posted a DNF log.

 

I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.

 

DNFs are not worthless to me!

I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it.

A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops.

If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information.

 

Who cares about the nag messages?

 

They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches.

They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are.

 

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

Give me a break!

 

Exactly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To me multiple dnf's mean one of four things.

 

It's a difficult cache to find

 

The cords are off significantly.

 

The cache was not re-placed in the original location.

 

The cache is missing.

 

Three of the four should be addressed by the cache owner if presented with multiple dnf's

 

The use of the dnf is important, especially to the cache owner. It's a yellow light telling the owner that there may be an issue with the cache. Don't hesitate to post one if you searched for the cache and didn't find it. Let the cache owner, if they're paying attention, worry about if and when the cache needs to be checked up on.

There are many other reasons for DNFs apart from those four and statistically they're bound to sometimes clump together forming consecutive logs, more so if there's a group hunt all DNFing for the same reason. For me, my most common failing is that my preconceived idea of where the cache will be and/or what it is I'm looking for is just plain wrong, so I spend a considerable time looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place before logging my DNF. Nothing wrong with the cache or its ratings, just another Blind Freddy award for BFJ. Other times I can see the cache but I'm not game to climb out/up to reach it, or, as happened recently, boulder-hop across a strongly-flowing river to the cache on the other side.

 

Of the 40+ DNFs I've had logged on my hides, there's been the onset of darkness, approaching storms, high seas, wrong tide, badly-placed muggles or just someone else earning themselves a Blind Freddy. None have been because of bad coordinates, incorrect placement after a find or a missing cache, and no-one has complained that my D-ratings are too low.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

 

Upsetting?

 

Alarmed?

 

Seriously - anyone who is this sensitive to an email reminder to check out their cache probably shouldn't be a cache owner anyway.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously - anyone who is this sensitive to an email reminder to check out their cache probably shouldn't be a cache owner anyway.

+1

1

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

 

Upsetting?

 

Alarmed?

 

Seriously - anyone who is this sensitive to an email reminder to check out their cache probably shouldn't be a cache owner anyway.

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

 

Upsetting?

 

Alarmed?

 

Seriously - anyone who is this sensitive to an email reminder to check out their cache probably shouldn't be a cache owner anyway.

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

Indeed. The email I got back in December four days after just one DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache, taken at face value, gave me three options - immediately visit the cache and fix the problem (not trivial on a T5 cache), disable it until I could, or archive it. Sure there were some weasel words in there that a lawyer could say meant I could just ignore it, but my training as an engineer says that when a problem is reported, ignoring it is never the correct response.

 

What I really wanted to do was report what was an extreme false positive - the cache wasn't missing (I'd already confirmed with the seeker that she'd been put off by muggles and was searching under the wrong tree, then she went back a week later and found it), four days is far too short a time after a DNF to start pestering the CO (at least give the DNFer time to try again, or for the CO to investigate if the log suggests there might be a problem) and just one DNF on a seven-week-old cache really doesn't mean it's been abandoned by its owner - but no, there isn't any way to provide that feedback, with HQ's response to my Help Centre request being just a boilerplate explanation of how the Cache Health Score works. I wasn't upset or alarmed, just frustrated and annoyed by the whole experience.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

 

This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails.

 

I understand that everyone finds their own work-arounds to these nuisances and I am not leading a charge to get everyone to stop DNFing. I, personally, feel that the changes have erased the value and meaning of my own DNF logs, and I don't wish to write logs that are only going to cause problems for COs by lowering some score and/or triggering the nag.

 

The other changes to the logging system only further indicate to me that Groundspeak has given up encouraging any kind of detail or context in any logs. I'm still out here using PQs on a stand-alone GPS, trying to find interesting and challenging caches, logging my caches one at a time with logs as unique as I can muster, but at a certain point it's time to just admit that my way of doing things is not what the system is built for. If detailed logging isn't important, fine, I give up.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it.

 

If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.

 

Upsetting?

 

Alarmed?

 

Seriously - anyone who is this sensitive to an email reminder to check out their cache probably shouldn't be a cache owner anyway.

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

 

And, having been discussed in such depth, are we still assuming that whatever algorithm exists is too sensitive?

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

 

This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails.

 

I understand that everyone finds their own work-arounds to these nuisances and I am not leading a charge to get everyone to stop DNFing. I, personally, feel that the changes have erased the value and meaning of my own DNF logs, and I don't wish to write logs that are only going to cause problems for COs by lowering some score and/or triggering the nag.

 

The other changes to the logging system only further indicate to me that Groundspeak has given up encouraging any kind of detail or context in any logs. I'm still out here using PQs on a stand-alone GPS, trying to find interesting and challenging caches, logging my caches one at a time with logs as unique as I can muster, but at a certain point it's time to just admit that my way of doing things is not what the system is built for. If detailed logging isn't important, fine, I give up.

 

Please explain how Ground Speak is discouraging detail or context in any logs. Are you referring to the "mold" thread?

 

For those who may be new here let me put the opposition to this whole thread in context.

 

For 99% of cache owners out there, dnf & Needs Maintenance logs are not an issue. In fact the use of them is incouraged.

 

Now if you happen to own a cache that's a significant distance away to reach, these simple logs are perceived as problematic.

 

Why? Because the cache owner may be required to actually hike out to the cache and check up on it as is required by every other cache owner.

 

I for one appreciate it when a cacher posts one of these logs as I hope most do.

 

Please don't discourage the use of these logs because you happen to own a cache that may require you to preform maintenance when someone issues one.

 

When maintaining a cache starts to become a nuisance it's time to re-evaluate why you own one.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

 

This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails.

 

There are innumerable posts on these forums where your position has been that guidelines trump personal preferences at every turn and that anyone who protests is simply whining.

 

And yet here you seem to be taking completely the opposite view and suggesting that personal preferences should take precendence and that anyone taking a different view is malicious.

 

I do wish you'd make your mind up.

Edited by Team Microdot
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

 

This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails.

 

I understand that everyone finds their own work-arounds to these nuisances and I am not leading a charge to get everyone to stop DNFing. I, personally, feel that the changes have erased the value and meaning of my own DNF logs, and I don't wish to write logs that are only going to cause problems for COs by lowering some score and/or triggering the nag.

 

The other changes to the logging system only further indicate to me that Groundspeak has given up encouraging any kind of detail or context in any logs. I'm still out here using PQs on a stand-alone GPS, trying to find interesting and challenging caches, logging my caches one at a time with logs as unique as I can muster, but at a certain point it's time to just admit that my way of doing things is not what the system is built for. If detailed logging isn't important, fine, I give up.

 

Please explain how Ground Speak is discouraging detail or context in any logs. Are you referring to the "mold" thread?

 

For those who may be new here let me put the opposition to this whole thread in context.

 

For 99% of cache owners out there, dnf & Needs Maintenance logs are not an issue. In fact the use of them is incouraged.

 

Now if you happen to own a cache that's a significant distance away to reach, these simple logs are perceived as problematic.

 

Why? Because the cache owner may be required to actually hike out to the cache and check up on it as is required by every other cache owner.

 

I for one appreciate it when a cacher posts one of these logs as I hope most do.

 

Please don't discourage the use of these logs because you happen to own a cache that may require you to preform maintenance when someone issues one.

 

When maintaining a cache starts to become a nuisance it's time to re-evaluate why you own one.

There are two issues here. The "new logging page" NMs contain little or no information, just that "this geocacher has reported a problem with this cache". If your cache is on the side of the road a few blocks from home it's no big deal, but if it takes half a day of strenuous hiking just to find out what the problem is, well...

 

The other, as I keep saying, is that most DNFs simply don't imply a problem with the cache or require any action by the CO. A month ago I had a DNF on one of my multis saying they couldn't get phone reception at the first waypoint and couldn't see the cache page (which, by the way, says that there's no phone reception there and to print everything out beforehand). What possible good would it do to dash over and check on that cache in response to a DNF like that?

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

This has been discussed in depth on previous threads. The email reminder is written in such a way that it asks you to take action. It doesn't sound optional. We know that there are cases where a single DNF can trigger this email. Whether it is upsetting, alarmed, or perhaps annoyed, confused, slightly irritated, etc... I can understand a cache owner thinking "Why am I getting this, and why should I check my cache" if the algorithm is too sensitive.

 

And I can understand cachers not wanting their log being the reason the health mail gets sent.

 

We know that these mails can be ignored, if the CO doesn't believe they are appropriate, and that it is only when a reviewer gets involved and disables that action is needed. But that isn't clear to most COs.

 

This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails.

 

I understand that everyone finds their own work-arounds to these nuisances and I am not leading a charge to get everyone to stop DNFing. I, personally, feel that the changes have erased the value and meaning of my own DNF logs, and I don't wish to write logs that are only going to cause problems for COs by lowering some score and/or triggering the nag.

 

The other changes to the logging system only further indicate to me that Groundspeak has given up encouraging any kind of detail or context in any logs. I'm still out here using PQs on a stand-alone GPS, trying to find interesting and challenging caches, logging my caches one at a time with logs as unique as I can muster, but at a certain point it's time to just admit that my way of doing things is not what the system is built for. If detailed logging isn't important, fine, I give up.

 

Please explain how Ground Speak is discouraging detail or context in any logs. Are you referring to the "mold" thread?

 

For those who may be new here let me put the opposition to this whole thread in context.

 

For 99% of cache owners out there, dnf & Needs Maintenance logs are not an issue. In fact the use of them is incouraged.

 

Now if you happen to own a cache that's a significant distance away to reach, these simple logs are perceived as problematic.

 

Why? Because the cache owner may be required to actually hike out to the cache and check up on it as is required by every other cache owner.

 

I for one appreciate it when a cacher posts one of these logs as I hope most do.

 

Please don't discourage the use of these logs because you happen to own a cache that may require you to preform maintenance when someone issues one.

 

When maintaining a cache starts to become a nuisance it's time to re-evaluate why you own one.

There are two issues here. The "new logging page" NMs contain little or no information, just that "this geocacher has reported a problem with this cache". If your cache is on the side of the road a few blocks from home it's no big deal, but if it takes half a day of strenuous hiking just to find out what the problem is, well...

 

The other, as I keep saying, is that most DNFs simply don't imply a problem with the cache or require any action by the CO. A month ago I had a DNF on one of my multis saying they couldn't get phone reception at the first waypoint and couldn't see the cache page (which, by the way, says that there's no phone reception there and to print everything out beforehand). What possible good would it do to dash over and check on that cache in response to a DNF like that?

 

Then we advocate including more information when posting a NM, we don't condemn the use of them.

 

I agree that most dnf's don't imply a problem, but many dnf's indicate that there could be, as dose a cache owner who ignores them.

 

When you read some of this stuff it sound as if one single dnf placed on a cache creates this wave of nuisance e-mails with threats of archival. It doesn't. And if it's actually something you'd loose sleep over than a simple conversation with your reviewer should put your mind at ease.

1

Share this post


Link to post

There are two issues here. The "new logging page" NMs contain little or no information, just that "this geocacher has reported a problem with this cache". If your cache is on the side of the road a few blocks from home it's no big deal, but if it takes half a day of strenuous hiking just to find out what the problem is, well...

 

The other, as I keep saying, is that most DNFs simply don't imply a problem with the cache or require any action by the CO. A month ago I had a DNF on one of my multis saying they couldn't get phone reception at the first waypoint and couldn't see the cache page (which, by the way, says that there's no phone reception there and to print everything out beforehand). What possible good would it do to dash over and check on that cache in response to a DNF like that?

 

Many of my DNFs in the past have been aborted attempts or situations where my experience may have been useful for others to know about, but do not warrant the assimption that the cache needs to be checked.

 

For a long time I have made a habit out of specifically avoiding any suggestion that the cache is gone when I DNF. I have been wrong too many times!

 

But now it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. DNF = check on your cache. It is no different than a NM. If I don't think the cache needs to be checked, I am not going to log a DNF. If I do think the cache needs to be checked, I will use NM. So that eliminates any need for DNF.

 

If the system is going to decide for me what my logs mean now, I need to be careful about how I use them.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next year or two as we all get used to the logging page changes and different tactics and work-arounds emerge. It is still important to me to track my DNFs and re-attempt them when possible, but I can't, in good faith, keep logging the way I did before.

 

I am just so disappointed in these changes. Over the past three years much of our caching has been by canoe, so old DNF logs can be very valuable when we're planning a trip. Usually, on caches like that, a DNF is due to seasonal conditions or other obstacles that have nothing to do with the "health" of the cache. It's just so frustrating that a DNF log, meant to be helpful and informative, now becomes a black mark against the cache owner. And these cache owners are often casual, so they don't necessarily know that they can safely ignore the automated nastygrams.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are two issues here. The "new logging page" NMs contain little or no information, just that "this geocacher has reported a problem with this cache". If your cache is on the side of the road a few blocks from home it's no big deal, but if it takes half a day of strenuous hiking just to find out what the problem is, well...

 

The other, as I keep saying, is that most DNFs simply don't imply a problem with the cache or require any action by the CO. A month ago I had a DNF on one of my multis saying they couldn't get phone reception at the first waypoint and couldn't see the cache page (which, by the way, says that there's no phone reception there and to print everything out beforehand). What possible good would it do to dash over and check on that cache in response to a DNF like that?

 

Many of my DNFs in the past have been aborted attempts or situations where my experience may have been useful for others to know about, but do not warrant the assimption that the cache needs to be checked.

 

For a long time I have made a habit out of specifically avoiding any suggestion that the cache is gone when I DNF. I have been wrong too many times!

 

But now it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. DNF = check on your cache. It is no different than a NM. If I don't think the cache needs to be checked, I am not going to log a DNF. If I do think the cache needs to be checked, I will use NM. So that eliminates any need for DNF.

 

If the system is going to decide for me what my logs mean now, I need to be careful about how I use them.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next year or two as we all get used to the logging page changes and different tactics and work-arounds emerge. It is still important to me to track my DNFs and re-attempt them when possible, but I can't, in good faith, keep logging the way I did before.

 

I am just so disappointed in these changes. Over the past three years much of our caching has been by canoe, so old DNF logs can be very valuable when we're planning a trip. Usually, on caches like that, a DNF is due to seasonal conditions or other obstacles that have nothing to do with the "health" of the cache. It's just so frustrating that a DNF log, meant to be helpful and informative, now becomes a black mark against the cache owner. And these cache owners are often casual, so they don't necessarily know that they can safely ignore the automated nastygrams.

 

1 dnf means check on your cache? A dnf is somehow a reflection on the cache owner? Nope, sorry but that's not what it meant 10 years ago and that's not what it means today. I don't think two dnfs on any particular cache would trigger anything. Three in a row might but if that were the case I wouldn't need a reviewer to "ask" me to please check up on it.

1

Share this post


Link to post

When you read some of this stuff it sound as if one single dnf placed on a cache creates this wave of nuisance e-mails with threats of archival. It doesn't. And if it's actually something you'd loose sleep over than a simple conversation with your reviewer should put your mind at ease.

You keep saying "it doesn't" but it did, just a single DNF generated an email to me telling me to visit the cache, disable it until I could or archive it. Maybe it's been tweaked since then, maybe it now needs two, three or whatever number of DNFs to fire it off, but as long as the system keeps insisting that some number of DNFs mean there's a problem with the cache, a well-intentioned DNF about storms, muggles or no phone reception could just be the one that sets it off. And on top of that we now have a Help Centre article telling people if they see a cache with several DNFs to log an NA!

0

Share this post


Link to post

When you read some of this stuff it sound as if one single dnf placed on a cache creates this wave of nuisance e-mails with threats of archival. It doesn't. And if it's actually something you'd loose sleep over than a simple conversation with your reviewer should put your mind at ease.

You keep saying "it doesn't" but it did, just a single DNF generated an email to me telling me to visit the cache, disable it until I could or archive it. Maybe it's been tweaked since then, maybe it now needs two, three or whatever number of DNFs to fire it off, but as long as the system keeps insisting that some number of DNFs mean there's a problem with the cache, a well-intentioned DNF about storms, muggles or no phone reception could just be the one that sets it off. And on top of that we now have a Help Centre article telling people if they see a cache with several DNFs to log an NA!

 

Ya, DID. Have we seen or heard of any other examples? Is there a wide spread epidemic I don't know about? Let's not take one example of a situation that occurred when the algorithm was first being implemented and act like it's the norm.

 

If there were 100 stories like the one you're referring too I still wouldn't be worried because for all the nuisance e-mails that may have been sent out I'd bet that 10 times that number of absentee cache owners have been identified and there caches archived.

1

Share this post


Link to post

When you read some of this stuff it sound as if one single dnf placed on a cache creates this wave of nuisance e-mails with threats of archival. It doesn't. And if it's actually something you'd loose sleep over than a simple conversation with your reviewer should put your mind at ease.

You keep saying "it doesn't" but it did, just a single DNF generated an email to me telling me to visit the cache, disable it until I could or archive it. Maybe it's been tweaked since then, maybe it now needs two, three or whatever number of DNFs to fire it off, but as long as the system keeps insisting that some number of DNFs mean there's a problem with the cache, a well-intentioned DNF about storms, muggles or no phone reception could just be the one that sets it off. And on top of that we now have a Help Centre article telling people if they see a cache with several DNFs to log an NA!

To be fair, it does say that NA is when there's no cache owner response, but also seems to conflict with another section on the same subject.

- But I agree, a DNF is not a NM, and shouldn't be "counted" on some system as one.

 

When this health thing first started, I asked whether D/T and such was gonna be taken into account, and was told yes by a Lackey.

- Maybe that's more on the Reviewer end, than this algorithm.

Just wait 'til AI hits the scene. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

As a relatively new cache owner (i adopted alot of caches that were in trouble because the owner lost interest and was not bothered by all the DNF's and NM logs), I welcome and rely on all logs including DNF logs on my new caches, just last week i had a DNF and it was because it had been muggled, it was soon replaced as it was fairly close. But if i get an automated email about it, so what ? I'm still going to check it out because i want to keep my caches in good shape, not because some health score somewhere that none of us can see, or can we ??

 

If we had access to see the health score on our caches it would be more useful than just getting an eamil telling us to sort it out or else.

 

The bottom line is, we need DNF logs even if it does generate an email from HQ. The responsible cache owners will be the ones that benefit from this.

If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby.

Edited by valhalla73
0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9