Demonising the DNF

[+justintim1999]

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!

 

The last part of your post almost slipped by me.

 

after seeing three or four dnfs I'd post a NM. But lets say a cacher posts an NA in this situation. The reviewer will probably disable the cache and request that the owner take a look. So what? If for some reason you don't think you need to check up on it explain why to your reviewer. If they agree than no harm no foul. If they don't then it's time to lace up the hiking boots or archive the cache yourself.

 

It's all about communication and dnfs are part of that.

Edited June 27, 2017 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

Well said

[+hzoi]

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...

And since then we have learned that the system has been revised to avoid false positives like that one. Not maybe.

 

Stop tilting at windmills. You got an email once. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it did. Let it go.

Edited June 27, 2017 by hzoi

[+Team Microdot]

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...

And since then we have learned that the system has been revised to avoid false positives like that one. Not maybe.

 

Stop tilting at windmills. You got an email once. Let it go.

 

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

[+valhalla73]

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.

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again.

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

 

Did you read Hzoi's post?

[+narcissa]

Just wait 'til AI hits the scene.

 

Good AI would probably have some ability to interpret the context of logs instead of just crudely treating DNFs as negative hits.

 

Another thing that gets lost in all of this is that much of the data that would actually point to a cache issue is hidden in Found It logs. That's where people admit to placing throw-downs, but I guess I'm in a minority among cachers who think that's a problem for the game. Seems like most of the forum mob just wants to take down cache owners who have the audacity to place a cache that isn't found by 100% of the people who attempt it.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again.

 

I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs.

 

When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant.

 

Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning.

[+justintim1999]

Just wait 'til AI hits the scene.

 

Good AI would probably have some ability to interpret the context of logs instead of just crudely treating DNFs as negative hits.

 

Another thing that gets lost in all of this is that much of the data that would actually point to a cache issue is hidden in Found It logs. That's where people admit to placing throw-downs, but I guess I'm in a minority among cachers who think that's a problem for the game. Seems like most of the forum mob just wants to take down cache owners who have the audacity to place a cache that isn't found by 100% of the people who attempt it.

 

That's why it's only a tool to be used by reviewers.

 

I'm not going to legitimize the last sentence of your post with a response. Or did I just do that?

[+Team Microdot]

Just wait 'til AI hits the scene.

 

Good AI would probably have some ability to interpret the context of logs instead of just crudely treating DNFs as negative hits.

 

Another thing that gets lost in all of this is that much of the data that would actually point to a cache issue is hidden in Found It logs. That's where people admit to placing throw-downs, but I guess I'm in a minority among cachers who think that's a problem for the game. Seems like most of the forum mob just wants to take down cache owners who have the audacity to place a cache that isn't found by 100% of the people who attempt it.

 

Nope.

 

Exaggeration does not a better argument make.

[+redsox_mark]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

[+justintim1999]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

[+WearyTraveler]

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!

Jeff - could there have been comething in the dnf log that would have triggered the email to you as the CO? Like the dreaded "mold" thread... I find it hard to understand / believe that a single dnf would trigger a "go check it" email. I'm not saying it didn't - I'm just having trouble seeing how it happened. I've had a couple of dnfs on my caches but haven't had the GS email...

 

I still plan to log caches that I didn't find as dnfs. I watch them and eventually they're found or archived. But I've yet to see a dnf'd cache immediately get NMd or NAd...

[+jellis]

I don't post NA unless the CO is not responding to DNFs and/NM. CO's job should be to respond even if the cache is still there. I sometimes email directly to the cacher to see if they searched the right area. If they did I will check it. And yes it depends on the difficulty. NA is not extreme, it draws attention and just gets the reviewer involved to deal with what CO is not doing which is have them check it, fix it or archive it.

Edited June 27, 2017 by jellis

[+WearyTraveler]

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.

 

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again.

 

I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs.

 

When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant.

 

Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning.

 

Come on... that's nowhere near what he said... what he said was "If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby."

 

And that's a correct statement - if you're not going to maintain your caches, perhaps being a CO isn't for you.

 

I still log dnfs regardless of the new logging / score / what have you... they'll either help cachers and COs, or they won't. But they'll know that I tried and couldn't find it...

[+niraD]

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?

I won't argue "too sensitive" vs "too insensitive" vs "just right", but no matter how the nag algorithm is tuned, there will be false positives.

 

I think it would be common sense for the nag emails to at least acknowledge the possibility of a false positive, and to tell the CO what to do if they think they have received the nag email in error.

[+WearyTraveler]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

More of a context thing, I would posit...

 

If 5 cachers with few finds go out on a cache run and miss your cache, you'll get 5 dnfs, all on the same day ( heck - if the 5 split up and only 1 searches for yours, you're still going to get 5 dnfs). In his case, 5 dnfs wouldn't merit a nod from a CO. Hopefully the nag mail / health score wouldn't get triggered

 

Now if you get a string of DNFs from experienced cachers, then maybe the CO should take a look.

[+WearyTraveler]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log.

 

That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies...

[+WearyTraveler]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log.

 

That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies...

[+justintim1999]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

More of a context thing, I would posit...

 

If 5 cachers with few finds go out on a cache run and miss your cache, you'll get 5 dnfs, all on the same day ( heck - if the 5 split up and only 1 searches for yours, you're still going to get 5 dnfs). In his case, 5 dnfs wouldn't merit a nod from a CO. Hopefully the nag mail / health score wouldn't get triggered

 

Now if you get a string of DNFs from experienced cachers, then maybe the CO should take a look.

 

Since the initial hick-up I haven't heard of any such dnf scenario triggering the "nagging e-mail". Maybe they've figured things out.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again.

 

I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs.

 

When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant.

 

Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning.

 

Come on... that's nowhere near what he said... what he said was "If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby."

 

And that's a correct statement - if you're not going to maintain your caches, perhaps being a CO isn't for you.

 

I still log dnfs regardless of the new logging / score / what have you... they'll either help cachers and COs, or they won't. But they'll know that I tried and couldn't find it...

 

I have no concerns as a cache owner. I worry about more casual cachers who don't know the nuances of these changes. Changing my logging habits to avoid triggering the auto-nag is just a small shift I will be making in response to the change.

 

Unlike some geocachers I still feel a sense of gratitude toward cache owners and don't wish to bring them trouble because I didn't have my thinking cap on at the GZ.

[+narcissa]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log.

 

That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies...

 

For me, that was a DNF. It was a cache I would want to record as an attempt and visit again. Now that they finally show the frowns on the map, I would have wanted to see that cache as a frown on the map. But it isn't worth creating a strike against the cache owner.

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

 

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again.

 

I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs.

 

When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant.

 

Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning.

 

Come on... that's nowhere near what he said... what he said was "If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby."

 

And that's a correct statement - if you're not going to maintain your caches, perhaps being a CO isn't for you.

 

I still log dnfs regardless of the new logging / score / what have you... they'll either help cachers and COs, or they won't. But they'll know that I tried and couldn't find it...

 

I have no concerns as a cache owner. I worry about more casual cachers who don't know the nuances of these changes. Changing my logging habits to avoid triggering the auto-nag is just a small shift I will be making in response to the change.

 

Unlike some geocachers I still feel a sense of gratitude toward cache owners and don't wish to bring them trouble because I didn't have my thinking cap on at the GZ.

 

You don't have concerns as a cache owner? From previous comments and what I know, I don't believe that's at all true. Your concerns about logging dnfs and there effects on other cache owners is unfounded and illogical.

 

If you do feel a sense of gratitude toward other cache owners you wouldn't hesitate posting a dnf or a NM. It would show that you have faith that other cache owner would appreciate that information and want to act on it. I know I would.

[+Team Microdot]

Unlike some geocachers I still feel a sense of gratitude toward cache owners and don't wish to bring them trouble because I didn't have my thinking cap on at the GZ.

 

You're not actually suggesting that people who post DNF's are lacking in any gratitude toward cache owners, are you?

 

That looks to me like the same sort of irrational thinking that leads people to mistakenly believe that encouraging throwdowns in order to escape having to perform actual cache maintenance is a good thing.

[+Pond Bird]

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.

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

Yes, but the difference now is automated tools. The automated tool can't tell the difference between a DNF which is clear I gave up before reaching the cache (got tired, could not climb the tree, etc) and one where I got to GZ and did a long search.

[+narcissa]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

[+lee737]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

More of a context thing, I would posit...

 

If 5 cachers with few finds go out on a cache run and miss your cache, you'll get 5 dnfs, all on the same day ( heck - if the 5 split up and only 1 searches for yours, you're still going to get 5 dnfs). In his case, 5 dnfs wouldn't merit a nod from a CO. Hopefully the nag mail / health score wouldn't get triggered

 

Now if you get a string of DNFs from experienced cachers, then maybe the CO should take a look.

 

Since the initial hick-up I haven't heard of any such dnf scenario triggering the "nagging e-mail". Maybe they've figured things out.

The Cache Health Score began life in mid 2015 so it had been in operation for eighteen months prior to my email. It wasn't an "initial hick-up", and over that time quite a number of false positives were reported here (see this thread for starters). Another was reported on the forums about a month after mine - if my memory serves me correctly, it was two DNFs about a week after publication that triggered it.

[+barefootjeff]

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!

Jeff - could there have been comething in the dnf log that would have triggered the email to you as the CO? Like the dreaded "mold" thread... I find it hard to understand / believe that a single dnf would trigger a "go check it" email. I'm not saying it didn't - I'm just having trouble seeing how it happened. I've had a couple of dnfs on my caches but haven't had the GS email...

 

I still plan to log caches that I didn't find as dnfs. I watch them and eventually they're found or archived. But I've yet to see a dnf'd cache immediately get NMd or NAd...

The DNF log that triggered it is here and I can't see any keywords that might have implied to the bot that the cache was missing or abandoned. I was told later that part of the reason the email was sent was that, prior to the DNF, my cache had only had one find in its seven weeks of life, and apparently new caches, even T5s, are expected to have way more than that over this timespan.

[+BCandMsKitty]

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.

 

THIS^

[+lee737]

False positives are not avoidable. With this sort of algorithm, the criteria are set, and regardless of how good the algorithm is, there will be false results (positive and negative). If you tweak it enough to eliminate the false pos results, you will increase the number of false negs. Given the worst case scenario is some errant emails, I'd prefer they minimise the false negs and allow more false pos results to go out.

[+narcissa]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when?

 

I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

[+lee737]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when?

 

I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

 

The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving.

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

 

If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches.

There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!!

All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find.

That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF

 

Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them!

Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting?

[+barefootjeff]

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.

And to be fair, there's nothing in the documented CO's Responsibilities that requires any response or action from the CO following DNF logs. If it's clear from the DNF that it had nothing to do with the cache (muggles, onset of rain, etc.), surely no action is needed, and even if that's not the case and I go and take a quick peek at the cache for my own peace of mind, there's no requirement to log an OM - often I'll just send a private message to the seeker assuring them it's still there and asking if they'd like an extra hint. OMs are meant to be a response to an NM or, to my thinking, when some actual maintenance is performed.

[+narcissa]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

 

If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches.

There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!!

All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find.

That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF

 

Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them!

Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting?

 

You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways.

[+lee737]

Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting?

 

You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways.

 

I think there was one or two emails sent, which has triggered enough posts to slow the WWW.....

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

 

If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches.

There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!!

All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find.

That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF

 

Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them!

Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting?

 

You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways.

 

Sure I've heard of them. And I've seen some of the posts, but, truthfully, have you had any DNFs on your caches and how many automated emails have you gotten?

 

I wonder what the ratio is of DNFs posted on all of geocaching to the number of automated emails actually sent.

[+narcissa]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

 

If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches.

There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!!

All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find.

That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF

 

Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them!

Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting?

 

You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways.

 

Sure I've heard of them. And I've seen some of the posts, but, truthfully, have you had any DNFs on your caches and how many automated emails have you gotten?

 

I wonder what the ratio is of DNFs posted on all of geocaching to the number of automated emails actually sent.

 

I don't have many active caches right now so my concern isn't from that angle. I am uncomfortable with the way the new system strips meaning and context from DNFs and makes them indistinguishable from NMs. Obviously, my personal system of logging is not what the Geocaching.com system is meant for, at least not anymore, so I need to adapt.

 

Everyone has different logging habits and systems. I am only talking about changing my own.

[+niraD]

False positives are not avoidable. With this sort of algorithm, the criteria are set, and regardless of how good the algorithm is, there will be false results (positive and negative). If you tweak it enough to eliminate the false pos results, you will increase the number of false negs. Given the worst case scenario is some errant emails, I'd prefer they minimise the false negs and allow more false pos results to go out.

As long as the nag emails are updated to acknowledge false positives, I think it would be fine to tune the system for a balance between false positives and false negatives.

 

So when is the nag email going to include something along the lines of, "If you think you have received this reminder in error and that there is no reason for you to visit your cache site to check on it, then..."?

[+lee737]

False positives are not avoidable. With this sort of algorithm, the criteria are set, and regardless of how good the algorithm is, there will be false results (positive and negative). If you tweak it enough to eliminate the false pos results, you will increase the number of false negs. Given the worst case scenario is some errant emails, I'd prefer they minimise the false negs and allow more false pos results to go out.

As long as the nag emails are updated to acknowledge false positives, I think it would be fine to tune the system for a balance between false positives and false negatives.

 

So when is the nag email going to include something along the lines of, "If you think you have received this reminder in error and that there is no reason for you to visit your cache site to check on it, then..."?

 

Good idea....

[+barefootjeff]

A few days ago I received another DNF on one of my older hides (a D2/T2.5 trad), so with an hour to spare this morning I went for a hike to check on it, just for my own peace of mind. Of course it was still there as good as the day I hid it, bringing the tally of DNFs on my hides to 47 and still none due to a missing or problematic cache. So from my perspective, DNFs that actually imply a cache problem requiring CO action to address are quite rare.

 

Mine are all bushland hides, usually close to an interesting natural feature but, because such features also attract muggles, placed a little way off to the side and generally well-concealed, and this leads to DNFs when people just assume (usually without reading the description) that the cache must be on the feature. I accept, though, that for urban hides the situation is different - an LPC is either there or it isn't so DNFs are much more likely to imply a missing cache. Perhaps the ones who wrote that Help Centre paragraph about logging an NA if there've been several DNFs just assume all caches are like that - maybe that's all they've ever experienced - or that challenging bushland hides are such a fringe element of the game as to be ignorable or even at odds with the direction they want the game to take.

[+redsox_mark]

 

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.

 

In my view, yes and no. If there is important information yes log, but it can also be a Note.

 

Over the years you will find many debates on this forum about when to log a DNF. Some take the "if I press go" approach. If they start to navigate to a cache on their device, they are "looking". That looking must end with either "Found it" or "DNF". Others only log a DNF if they reach GZ, Still others only log DNF if they got to GZ and had a "good look". It was a matter of opinion, and it didn't really matter.

 

Personally, I took an approach in the middle. I would log a DNF if the reason was "geocaching related". E.g I get to GZ and decide I can't climb the tree. I would log a DNF. I tried, I could not "find". But if I turned back half way to GZ because it started to rain, I'd log either a note or nothing.

 

Now, the tools treat every DNF as "it might be missing". Because of that, I've moved to the camp of only logging DNF if I reach GZ and have a "good look". If I can't climb the tree I'd log a note, not a DNF.

 

That's just me. I think these days it makes sense to consider how DNFs are used when deciding the log type. But others will continue to log DNFs as they always have, including the "if I press go" approach.

[anpefi]

Let's see if I understood well (my English skills are not as good as they should be).

The main concern here is that DNF logs now have a great impact on the Cache Health Score (CHS) even if the context of the log is clearly not related to the cache health. This could trigger an automated email notice to the CO to take action.

 

In my opinion, this is not a big issue even for the CO. Let's imagine that in one of my caches I receive a couple of DNFs logging "I abort because of muggles" and "It was too cold to search for more than 1 minute". If those DNFs (and lacking of further DNFs of logs related to actual cache problems) trigger the automated email to me, asking me to take action to avoid Archive, I would take action. But this doesn't means that I have to go to a X-hours walk to my cache to check it is in its place (there is not a clue of that). I would log an OM with "Given that the DNFs reported didn't make a complete search I don't think there is any problem with this cache (unless any cacher can say other thing) and I consider it is in good health". That OM log should recover the CHS. If a reviewer check the cache and complains about logging OM without actual visiting the cache at least I can argue now with a human and not an automated system. Not a big issue here.

 

I think DNF logs, if providing some detailed context (not those plain "I didn't find it "), are very useful for everybody (DNF poster, CO, future hunters and past DNF posters) and if they trigger an automated notice to owners is also good as they force CO at least to be responsive.

[+justintim1999]

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

Yes, but the difference now is automated tools. The automated tool can't tell the difference between a DNF which is clear I gave up before reaching the cache (got tired, could not climb the tree, etc) and one where I got to GZ and did a long search.

 

That's part of the problem. A dnf shouldn't be posted unless your satisfied you gave it a legitimate go. If for any reason you didn't or couldn't you should post a note instead.

[+justintim1999]

 

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

The cacher shouldn't post a dnf in this case. They should post a note because they didn't actually do a complete search.

[+justintim1999]

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?

 

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't.

 

These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing.

 

I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one.

 

I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing?

 

More of a context thing, I would posit...

 

If 5 cachers with few finds go out on a cache run and miss your cache, you'll get 5 dnfs, all on the same day ( heck - if the 5 split up and only 1 searches for yours, you're still going to get 5 dnfs). In his case, 5 dnfs wouldn't merit a nod from a CO. Hopefully the nag mail / health score wouldn't get triggered

 

Now if you get a string of DNFs from experienced cachers, then maybe the CO should take a look.

 

Since the initial hick-up I haven't heard of any such dnf scenario triggering the "nagging e-mail". Maybe they've figured things out.

The Cache Health Score began life in mid 2015 so it had been in operation for eighteen months prior to my email. It wasn't an "initial hick-up", and over that time quite a number of false positives were reported here (see this thread for starters). Another was reported on the forums about a month after mine - if my memory serves me correctly, it was two DNFs about a week after publication that triggered it.

 

So in 18 months of dnfs how many false positives have been reported? You can try convince everyone that this ant hill is a mountain but I just don't buy it.

 

If I were the owner of the cache in your second example I'd have gone and checked up on it after the first dnf. Brand new cache with two dnf's would make me think that somethings not right.

[+narcissa]

Let's see if I understood well (my English skills are not as good as they should be).

The main concern here is that DNF logs now have a great impact on the Cache Health Score (CHS) even if the context of the log is clearly not related to the cache health. This could trigger an automated email notice to the CO to take action.

 

In my opinion, this is not a big issue even for the CO. Let's imagine that in one of my caches I receive a couple of DNFs logging "I abort because of muggles" and "It was too cold to search for more than 1 minute". If those DNFs (and lacking of further DNFs of logs related to actual cache problems) trigger the automated email to me, asking me to take action to avoid Archive, I would take action. But this doesn't means that I have to go to a X-hours walk to my cache to check it is in its place (there is not a clue of that). I would log an OM with "Given that the DNFs reported didn't make a complete search I don't think there is any problem with this cache (unless any cacher can say other thing) and I consider it is in good health". That OM log should recover the CHS. If a reviewer check the cache and complains about logging OM without actual visiting the cache at least I can argue now with a human and not an automated system. Not a big issue here.

 

I think DNF logs, if providing some detailed context (not those plain "I didn't find it "), are very useful for everybody (DNF poster, CO, future hunters and past DNF posters) and if they trigger an automated notice to owners is also good as they force CO at least to be responsive.

 

This is dandy, but most cache owners don't read the forum and wouldn't necessarily know they can do that when they receive a terse email demanding action regardless of context. From the examples that have been raised in previous posts, the tone of the message doesn't suggest there is any flexibility or room for cache owner discretion.