Demonising the DNF

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Have you ever owned or looked for a very difficult cache? A cache with a D4 or higher rating, if properly rated should have a high percentage of DNFs. In fact, the cache rating system suggested that a D4 should require multiple trips to find, and if one is logging correctly that would suggest that a D4 cache could easily have half of it's logs as DNFs. Even a D3 hide should be "somewhat challenging" and rack up some DNFs. Unless an automated ranking system significantly weights the D/T ratings for the health score, the owner of a D4 or higher cache are going to get a lot of nag emails. It might be enough for the CO to consider not placing any more high difficulty hides. For those with mid difficulty hides, the automated health score might even encourage a CO to incorrectly inflate the difficulty rating on their cache to avoid those nag emails.

 

 

[+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.

 

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.

 

With the new use of DNF, I agree with you, which is why I am changing my logging practice.

 

But your opinion of "a dnf shouldn't be posted unless your satisfied you gave it a legitimate go" is not defined anywhere or universally accepted. DNF has always meant simply that one "attempted to find" and didn't find it.

[+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.

 

Have you ever owned or looked for a very difficult cache? A cache with a D4 or higher rating, if properly rated should have a high percentage of DNFs. In fact, the cache rating system suggested that a D4 should require multiple trips to find, and if one is logging correctly that would suggest that a D4 cache could easily have half of it's logs as DNFs. Even a D3 hide should be "somewhat challenging" and rack up some DNFs. Unless an automated ranking system significantly weights the D/T ratings for the health score, the owner of a D4 or higher cache are going to get a lot of nag emails. It might be enough for the CO to consider not placing any more high difficulty hides. For those with mid difficulty hides, the automated health score might even encourage a CO to incorrectly inflate the difficulty rating on their cache to avoid those nag emails.

 

I have but only a few. Most of them involve a water crossing and I don't own a boat.

 

Your example would be a concern if a reviewer were not involved. I've got to believe they understand that D/T needed to be taken into consideration and I'll bet they've already tweaked the system to reflect that.

 

I'd like to know if these e-mails are sent out autonomously by the system or are the caches put into a list that is reviewed before being sent?

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

I've seen some terse emails. This one doesn't' qualify.

 

Change the wording of the email. Add a button to acknowledge the owners receipt. Include a way to contact the reviewer with information as to why you don't think your cache needs attention. I think GS is simply looking for a response, any response to indicate the cache owner is still active.

[+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.

 

With the new use of DNF, I agree with you, which is why I am changing my logging practice.

 

But your opinion of "a dnf shouldn't be posted unless your satisfied you gave it a legitimate go" is not defined anywhere or universally accepted. DNF has always meant simply that one "attempted to find" and didn't find it.

 

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

[+redsox_mark]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

[+justintim1999]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

 

In the case of the multi I'd write a note and not post a dnf. I found everything I looked for just didn't have time to finish.

 

If I see the cache but can't retrieve it I'll also post a note

 

Puzzle caches would be a little different. If I haven't verified the answer to the puzzle through a geo checker or the owner and I searched but didn't find it, I'd also post a note because I'm not 100% sure I'm looking in the correct spot.

 

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes? Or maybe some kind of interactive tutorial would help.

[+redsox_mark]

 

In the case of the multi I'd write a note and not post a dnf. I found everything I looked for just didn't have time to finish.

 

If I see the cache but can't retrieve it I'll also post a note

 

Puzzle caches would be a little different. If I haven't verified the answer to the puzzle through a geo checker or the owner and I searched but didn't find it, I'd also post a note because I'm not 100% sure I'm looking in the correct spot.

 

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes? Or maybe some kind of interactive tutorial would help.

 

Yes it is easy to explain, but my point is that the "rules" on when to log a DNF aren't defined in such a way that they are applied by all in the same way.

 

Here is a fairly recent thread which shows that. DNF or Note

It starts with the cache in a tree example. What is interesting here is the CO complaining that a DNF was logged. I can see more of that happening with DNFs triggering the health emails,

[+Team Microdot]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

[+justintim1999]

 

In the case of the multi I'd write a note and not post a dnf. I found everything I looked for just didn't have time to finish.

 

If I see the cache but can't retrieve it I'll also post a note

 

Puzzle caches would be a little different. If I haven't verified the answer to the puzzle through a geo checker or the owner and I searched but didn't find it, I'd also post a note because I'm not 100% sure I'm looking in the correct spot.

 

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes? Or maybe some kind of interactive tutorial would help.

 

Yes it is easy to explain, but my point is that the "rules" on when to log a DNF aren't defined in such a way that they are applied by all in the same way.

 

Here is a fairly recent thread which shows that. DNF or Note

It starts with the cache in a tree example. What is interesting here is the CO complaining that a DNF was logged. I can see more of that happening with DNFs triggering the health emails,

 

No doubt about it. The misuse of logs can and will cause problems.

 

You got to ask yourself why the cacher posted a dnf? Even as the current guidelines are constituted this isn't a dnf.

[+justintim1999]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

Nope. This is the point where I graciously ask you to...... have a nice day! Wink, Wink.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

[+Team Microdot]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

Nope. This is the point where I graciously ask you to...... have a nice day! Wink, Wink.

 

It might just be me being a bit slow today but I genuinely have not the foggiest idea what you're trying to say - or not say

[+redsox_mark]

And to clarify my own post - by "evidence" I don't mean there needs to be remains of a cache or attachment. I mean, if I reach GZ and search, and can't find it, that itself is evidence it might be missing.

 

If I reach the tree, and don't climb it, or never reach GZ at all, I have zero "evidence" that it might be missing.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

I very strongly suspect that people have been reading meaning into DNF's for as long as people have geocached - which is probably exactly as long as people have engaged with vigour in the Found It vs Did Not Find it debate.

 

The point is - if you're going to demand a very precise definition of a DNF then you really should have an equally precise definition of a Find.

 

Plus, I'm going to assume that the flip side of Jeremy's post is also true by inference.

 

So yeah - it's applicable here.

[+justintim1999]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

I very strongly suspect that people have been reading meaning into DNF's for as long as people have geocached - which is probably exactly as long as people have engaged with vigour in the Found It vs Did Not Find it debate.

 

The point is - if you're going to demand a very precise definition of a DNF then you really should have an equally precise definition of a Find.

 

Plus, I'm going to assume that the flip side of Jeremy's post is also true by inference.

 

So yeah - it's applicable here.

 

No doubt there should be both.

[+justintim1999]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

The problem is that everyone else is using their own interpretation as well which is causing the vast majority of the issue. Many want to blame the health score for elevating the status of the dnf but the reality is if everyone used the dnf in the same manor we'd have much less confusion.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

The problem is that everyone else is using their own interpretation as well which is causing the vast majority of the issue. Many want to blame the health score for elevating the status of the dnf but the reality is if everyone used the dnf in the same manor we'd have much less confusion.

 

I think you mean in the same manner.

[+justintim1999]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

The problem is that everyone else is using their own interpretation as well which is causing the vast majority of the issue. Many want to blame the health score for elevating the status of the dnf but the reality is if everyone used the dnf in the same manor we'd have much less confusion.

 

I think you mean in the same manner.

 

Yes I did. Thanks for being useful.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Is this the point at which we reel out Jeremy's post stating how arguing about what does and does not constitute a find was never intended to be part of the game?

 

I don't see that being applicable here.

 

The point I'm trying to make: There has been long debates and lack of consensus about when one should log a DNF vs a Note (or nothing). And that doesn't bother me at all. I use my own interpretation. Others do it differently. No problem.

 

But now, increasingly, DNFs are counted up by tools and the DNFs mean "it might be missing". I'm OK with that too.

 

But here is my point: If DNF is to mean "it might be missing", then surely it makes sense only to log a DNF when there is at least some evidence that it might be missing. In which case, it would make sense to clarify when to log DNF in the Help Center.

 

The problem is that everyone else is using their own interpretation as well which is causing the vast majority of the issue. Many want to blame the health score for elevating the status of the dnf but the reality is if everyone used the dnf in the same manor we'd have much less confusion.

 

I think you mean in the same manner.

 

Yes I did. Thanks for being useful.

 

The pleasure's all mine - just seeking to avoid yet more confusion - intentional or otherwise.

[+justintim1999]

And to clarify my own post - by "evidence" I don't mean there needs to be remains of a cache or attachment. I mean, if I reach GZ and search, and can't find it, that itself is evidence it might be missing.

 

If I reach the tree, and don't climb it, or never reach GZ at all, I have zero "evidence" that it might be missing.

 

Now where were we? Ahhh yes we were discussing dnfs.

 

That about sums up how I see it too.

 

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

[+bflentje]

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

 

I can't believe I am agreeing with the dot.

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

I can't believe I am agreeing with the dot.

 

Rarely is it detrimental to health.

[+niraD]

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes?

Sure. And I've done it multiple times.

 

But even when I spend an hour introducing newcomers to geocaching, I never get to esoterica like when it's appropriate to post a DNF log vs a Note log. For that matter, I spend very little time on the use of the geocaching.com site at all, and most of that is on more basic things like cache types, cache sizes, and difficulty and terrain ratings.

[+qtbluemoon]

 

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.

 

But how many of your DNF's have triggered nag messages? I'm still not seeing the stigma of DNF's. The main stigma is the CO's non-response to them.

[+Team Microdot]

And to clarify my own post - by "evidence" I don't mean there needs to be remains of a cache or attachment. I mean, if I reach GZ and search, and can't find it, that itself is evidence it might be missing.

 

If I reach the tree, and don't climb it, or never reach GZ at all, I have zero "evidence" that it might be missing.

 

Now where were we? Ahhh yes we were discussing dnfs.

 

That about sums up how I see it too.

 

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

Which is part of the problem (if we can call it a problem).

Edited June 28, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+cerberus1]

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes?

Sure. And I've done it multiple times.

 

But even when I spend an hour introducing newcomers to geocaching, I never get to esoterica like when it's appropriate to post a DNF log vs a Note log. For that matter, I spend very little time on the use of the geocaching.com site at all, and most of that is on more basic things like cache types, cache sizes, and difficulty and terrain ratings.

+1

With the folks we've taken under wing, we've kept things light and fun, centering on the basics.

We also show them how to find Geocaching 101 and the Help Center (which is tough for me to find things now) for any additional questions too.

Most are still playing today.

 

- To get anal about guidelines and a myriad of "what ifs..." in an introduction would have probably steered them away from this hobby - or at least away from us.

[+niraD]

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

So if I search for 10 minutes and I'm "satisfied", then that's a DNF. But if I search for 10 minutes and I'm not "satisfied", then that's not a DNF.

 

Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've searched everywhere it could possibly be and it's probably missing"? Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've had all the fun I'm going to have with this cache today"? Does "satisfied" mean... something else?

 

Meh. If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. There are occasional exceptions, but they aren't based on whether someone else may or may not be "satisfied" with my search.

[+qtbluemoon]

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?

 

Did you get a nag letter from this one DNF?

[+justintim1999]

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

So if I search for 10 minutes and I'm "satisfied", then that's a DNF. But if I search for 10 minutes and I'm not "satisfied", then that's not a DNF.

 

Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've searched everywhere it could possibly be and it's probably missing"? Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've had all the fun I'm going to have with this cache today"? Does "satisfied" mean... something else?

 

Meh. If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. There are occasional exceptions, but they aren't based on whether someone else may or may not be "satisfied" with my search.

 

Haven't we had this conversation before regarding the word "occasional"? Seems silly for me to have to define what satisfied means to you but if you want me to I'll try?

[+niraD]

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

So if I search for 10 minutes and I'm "satisfied", then that's a DNF. But if I search for 10 minutes and I'm not "satisfied", then that's not a DNF.

 

Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've searched everywhere it could possibly be and it's probably missing"? Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've had all the fun I'm going to have with this cache today"? Does "satisfied" mean... something else?

 

Meh. If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. There are occasional exceptions, but they aren't based on whether someone else may or may not be "satisfied" with my search.

Haven't we had this conversation before regarding the word "occasional"? Seems silly for me to have to define what satisfied means to you but if you want me to I'll try?

The point is not to define "satisfied".

 

The point is that a DNF does not require searching until the seeker (or anyone else) is "satisfied".

[+justintim1999]

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

So if I search for 10 minutes and I'm "satisfied", then that's a DNF. But if I search for 10 minutes and I'm not "satisfied", then that's not a DNF.

 

Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've searched everywhere it could possibly be and it's probably missing"? Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've had all the fun I'm going to have with this cache today"? Does "satisfied" mean... something else?

 

Meh. If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. There are occasional exceptions, but they aren't based on whether someone else may or may not be "satisfied" with my search.

Haven't we had this conversation before regarding the word "occasional"? Seems silly for me to have to define what satisfied means to you but if you want me to I'll try?

The point is not to define "satisfied".

 

The point is that a DNF does not require searching until the seeker (or anyone else) is "satisfied".

 

The point is that if you go to gz and don't really search you shouldn't post a dnf. Post a didn't even try or couldn't be bothered instead. As we now know that dnf you just posted could have consequences.

[+niraD]

The point is that if you go to gz and don't really search you shouldn't post a dnf. Post a didn't even try or couldn't be bothered instead.

If I get to GZ and don't search, then I might post a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note log, assuming there's a story to tell.

 

But when I get to GZ, search, and don't find the cache, I honestly don't worry about whether anyone thinks I "really" searched, or whether anyone is "satisfied I've searched completely". I post a DNF log.

 

As we now know that dnf you just posted could have consequences.

Yeah, and I know those consequences discourage some from posting DNF logs.

 

I'm in the "fix the unintended consequences" camp. I want the nag email system to accommodate false positives. Eliminating false positives is unrealistic. Ignoring false positives is harmful.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Have you ever owned or looked for a very difficult cache? A cache with a D4 or higher rating, if properly rated should have a high percentage of DNFs. In fact, the cache rating system suggested that a D4 should require multiple trips to find, and if one is logging correctly that would suggest that a D4 cache could easily have half of it's logs as DNFs. Even a D3 hide should be "somewhat challenging" and rack up some DNFs. Unless an automated ranking system significantly weights the D/T ratings for the health score, the owner of a D4 or higher cache are going to get a lot of nag emails. It might be enough for the CO to consider not placing any more high difficulty hides. For those with mid difficulty hides, the automated health score might even encourage a CO to incorrectly inflate the difficulty rating on their cache to avoid those nag emails.

 

I have but only a few. Most of them involve a water crossing and I don't own a boat.

 

Your example would be a concern if a reviewer were not involved. I've got to believe they understand that D/T needed to be taken into consideration and I'll bet they've already tweaked the system to reflect that.

 

I'd like to know if these e-mails are sent out autonomously by the system or are the caches put into a list that is reviewed before being sent?

 

Good question. I always assumed that the email messages were sent out autonomously and that reviewer involvement occurred if the cache owner either ignored the message (did not respond with an owner maintenance log.) There's really no point in sending out an email message if a cache falls below a health score, if the local reviewer can't tell if the CO ignored it. I've seen quite a few caches with high Difficulty ratings that might get a dozen DNFs in a row before a find. I know of a few that have had well over 100 DNFs before it was first found. Even if the algorithm takes into account a high D rating, a cache with a dozen or more DNFs in a row is probably going to trigger the email message. The CO would then have to respond to it, only to have another email message sent after a dozen more geocachers attempt to find it.

 

[+justintim1999]

The point is that if you go to gz and don't really search you shouldn't post a dnf. Post a didn't even try or couldn't be bothered instead.

If I get to GZ and don't search, then I might post a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note log, assuming there's a story to tell.

 

But when I get to GZ, search, and don't find the cache, I honestly don't worry about whether anyone thinks I "really" searched, or whether anyone is "satisfied I've searched completely". I post a DNF log.

 

As we now know that dnf you just posted could have consequences.

Yeah, and I know those consequences discourage some from posting DNF logs.

 

I'm in the "fix the unintended consequences" camp. I want the nag email system to accommodate false positives. Eliminating false positives is unrealistic. Ignoring false positives is harmful.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Isn't posting a dnf on a cache you really didn't even try to find a false positive?

 

Logging dnfs correctly would help some of those unintended consequences. Look I don't care if you have 10 or 10,000 finds. If you honestly tried to find the cache and couldn't than please post a dnf.

 

To be honest I'd rather have you post a found it log than a dnf if you didn't even try. Fewer negative consequences.

[+Team Microdot]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

[+J Grouchy]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

 

Whatever his answer is, I hope he's "satisfied" with it.

Edited June 28, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

 

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.

 

But how many of your DNF's have triggered nag messages? I'm still not seeing the stigma of DNF's. The main stigma is the CO's non-response to them.

 

I have no way of knowing. I just know what I see in the forum and hear from fellow geocachers.

 

There are several voices right here in this thread underscoring my feeling that I have been using them wrong anyway. I use them primarily to track my own attempts at caches so I know which ones I would like to attempt again. The new system and the forum mob assure me this is wrong.

 

So if I am only allowed to use a DNF when I believe a cache is missing, they are indistinguishable from an NM and I see no need to use DNF at all.

[+barefootjeff]

 

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.

 

But how many of your DNF's have triggered nag messages? I'm still not seeing the stigma of DNF's. The main stigma is the CO's non-response to them.

But there's no requirement anywhere in the guidelines or Help Centre saying a CO has to respond to DNFs.

[+barefootjeff]

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I agree it makes sense given the way DNF is being used to define it this way. But currently it is not defined this way, and it is not a universally accepted definition today.

 

The current definition per the help center is Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. Very simple, except for what does "look for" mean? If I find 2 of the 5 stages of a multi then give up for whatever reason, I was looking, in fact I found 2 stages. Same when I get to the tree and look and see the cache 50 feet up and decide that's too high for me. I didn't "find it" per geocaching, but I saw it.

 

I'm all for the Help Center being updated to make this more clear.

With DNFs now being shown on the map, that only encourages people to log DNF whenever they have attempted a cache but not put a signature in the log for whatever reason, either as a reminder of ones they might want to go back and retry or as a warning not to go near them again.

[+narcissa]

With DNFs now being shown on the map, that only encourages people to log DNF whenever they have attempted a cache but not put a signature in the log for whatever reason, either as a reminder of ones they might want to go back and retry or as a warning not to go near them again.

 

This is the most astonishing part of the whole thing. For years people have been asking for this feature, specifically to enhance the DNF as a tool for the finder so we can see caches on the map that we've attempted but haven't found. So they finally implement this feature in the map and then turn around and make the DNF into something totally different! It's absurd.

[+barefootjeff]

 

In the case of the multi I'd write a note and not post a dnf. I found everything I looked for just didn't have time to finish.

 

If I see the cache but can't retrieve it I'll also post a note

 

Puzzle caches would be a little different. If I haven't verified the answer to the puzzle through a geo checker or the owner and I searched but didn't find it, I'd also post a note because I'm not 100% sure I'm looking in the correct spot.

 

Don't you get the feeling you could sit down with a new cacher face to face and explain all the concepts of geocaching in about 15 minutes? Or maybe some kind of interactive tutorial would help.

 

Yes it is easy to explain, but my point is that the "rules" on when to log a DNF aren't defined in such a way that they are applied by all in the same way.

 

Here is a fairly recent thread which shows that. DNF or Note

It starts with the cache in a tree example. What is interesting here is the CO complaining that a DNF was logged. I can see more of that happening with DNFs triggering the health emails,

Interesting reading back through that tree thread. My contribution (#38) says pretty much what I'm saying now - most DNFs don't imply a cache problem - and that was a month before I got my nag email. And for the record, in that situation where I could see the cache but wasn't game to climb to it, I'd always logged DNF.

[+Gill & Tony]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

1. I don't get close to GZ. In this case I usually log nothing. If the reason might be of interest to others, I will log a note.

 

2. I get close to GZ and choose not to start searching. Usually I log nothing unless the reason might be significant to others. If a local farmers market has just started and is held on the second Sunday of the Month, I'll probably log a note advising that there is a market stall just a few metres from GZ and the second Sunday of the month probably isn't the best time to search for this one. Once I posted an NA.

 

3. I start searching, the cache is found and the log signed. I would log a find

 

4. I start searching, the cache is found, but I cannot sign the log due to maintenance issues. I log a find provided I can supply evidence of my presence and of the issue. I'll also log a NM, or possibly even an NA.

 

5. I start searching, the cache is located but I cannot sign the log due to my failing. If I can't reach the cache, can't solve the field puzzle, have forgotten my pen and can't find any other way to sign the log, I won't log a DNF - I found the darn thing, after all. I'll log a note, if only to thank the CO for the cache.

 

6. I start searching can't find the cache and finally decide that I'm giving up on this one today. I'll log a DNF.

 

7. I start searching, can't find the cache in the time available but external factors mean I have to cut short the search. I may or may not log a DNF, depending on whether I feel I have given a good search. When I had just begun my search and a group of muggles started a Tai Chi session 5m from GZ (yes, that really happened) I didn't log anything. Other times I'll log a note or DNF, depending on whether I feel I had made a real search.

[+barefootjeff]

I'll take it one step further. If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

So if I search for 10 minutes and I'm "satisfied", then that's a DNF. But if I search for 10 minutes and I'm not "satisfied", then that's not a DNF.

 

Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've searched everywhere it could possibly be and it's probably missing"? Does "satisfied" mean "satisfied that I've had all the fun I'm going to have with this cache today"? Does "satisfied" mean... something else?

 

Meh. If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. There are occasional exceptions, but they aren't based on whether someone else may or may not be "satisfied" with my search.

Haven't we had this conversation before regarding the word "occasional"? Seems silly for me to have to define what satisfied means to you but if you want me to I'll try?

The point is not to define "satisfied".

 

The point is that a DNF does not require searching until the seeker (or anyone else) is "satisfied".

 

The point is that if you go to gz and don't really search you shouldn't post a dnf. Post a didn't even try or couldn't be bothered instead. As we now know that dnf you just posted could have consequences.

Just looking at another of the more recent DNF logs I've received on my caches: "Argh mozzies. Rain, mozzies and dwindling sunlight resulted in a dnf." How am I, as a CO, expected to "respond" to that, or alternatively to stop people logging such things as DNFs?

 

Either DNF means simply that I went to the location with the intention of finding the cache but couldn't, accept that that's all a DNF implies and rely on NM/NA for missing/misplaced/broken caches, or make it clear to everyone that DNF should only be used when there's something wrong with the cache that the CO needs to respond to and specify what sort of response is needed.

 

Going back to the Help Centre page that started this thread, I'm still scratching my head. It doesn't even say or imply several DNFs since the last find, it just says you should log an NA if you can't find the cache and there are several DNF logs on the cache page with no cache owner response. Makes me think I should just cut out the middle man and archive all my hides that have had more than one DNF like this that I can't fix .

[+fizzymagic]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

(incredibly detailed set of rationalizations and rules deleted)

 

You tell yourself whatever you need to.

 

In reality, there are two possible outcomes. You either found the cache or you did not. If you found it, log a Found. If not, log a DNF. The byzantine rationalizations like yours above, apparently used to make yourself feel better about not logging your DNFs, are exactly what has gotten us into this mess where HQ apparently thinks a DNF means "the cache is missing."

 

I, for one, refuse to change my logging practices based on HQ abusing their own logging system.

[+Gill & Tony]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

(incredibly detailed set of rationalizations and rules deleted)

 

You tell yourself whatever you need to.

 

In reality, there are two possible outcomes. You either found the cache or you did not. If you found it, log a Found. If not, log a DNF. The byzantine rationalizations like yours above, apparently used to make yourself feel better about not logging your DNFs, are exactly what has gotten us into this mess where HQ apparently thinks a DNF means "the cache is missing."

 

I, for one, refuse to change my logging practices based on HQ abusing their own logging system.

I disagree. It is people who log DNF when they hit go on their GPS but never reach GZ who are causing the problem. It is people who log DNF when they get to GZ and don't start to search who are causing the problem. Log those as notes or don't log anything and a lot of DNF logs would never happen and the health score wouldn't be affected.

 

I refuse to log DNF when I didn't search for the cache.

 

And, by the way, I do log my DNFs. I have logged 160 DNFs vs 1234 finds so about 12% of my searches have been unsuccessful, so I don't have anything to make myself feel better about there.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+fizzymagic]

It is people who log DNF when they hit go on their GPS but never reach GZ who are causing the problem. It is people who log DNF when they get to GZ and don't start to search who are causing the problem.

 

I completely fail to understand you.

 

The problem is that HQ is abusing the DNF log type to harrass good cache owners in a misguided effort to improve cache quality.

 

Could you explain in small words why people who log DNFs without doing a proper (to your mind) search are forcing HQ to abuse DNFs as an indicator of "cache health?"

[+Gill & Tony]

It is people who log DNF when they hit go on their GPS but never reach GZ who are causing the problem. It is people who log DNF when they get to GZ and don't start to search who are causing the problem.

 

I completely fail to understand you.

 

The problem is that HQ is abusing the DNF log type to harrass good cache owners in a misguided effort to improve cache quality.

 

Could you explain in small words why people who log DNFs without doing a proper (to your mind) search are forcing HQ to abuse DNFs as an indicator of "cache health?"

Nobody is forcing HQ to abuse the DNF log type. They are choosing to do it of their own free will. I agree, and I think we all agree, that this is not a good thing, but it seems to be happening. I probably phrased it badly when I said that people logging DNF's without searching are causing the problem. I should, perhaps, have said that they are exacerbating an already existing problem.

 

If we accept that HQ are going to assume that a DNF is an indicator of bad cache health, then we need to find a mechanism to allow DNFs to be logged without triggering unnecessary hits on the health score. All DNF logs seem to be treated equally, regardless of textual content and that suggests that a log which says "I hit GO on the GPS, but a downpour started and I drove home without getting within 5 miles of GZ" will have the same effect as a log which says "I searched high and low for 45 minutes and simply couldn't find it".

 

If those two logs have the same effect on the health score then it seems logical, at least to me, that we should not be writing the first log as a DNF.

 

Nowra is a town about 55Km from my home. On one souvenir day I set out to find my nearest easy qualifying cache, which happened to be in Nowra. There was a major accident on the highway and the road was closed for several hours about 30Km from Nowra. I turned round and went home. I logged nothing. To me, that's not a DNF.

 

The reason I believe that DNF's should only be logged when the person doing the search has made what they believe to be a reasonable search (what you and I believe is reasonable doesn't matter) is because HQ has chosen to treat all DNFs as health score hits.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+redsox_mark]

 

The reason I believe that DNF's should only be logged when the person doing the search has made what they believe to be a reasonable search (what you and I believe is reasonable doesn't matter) is because HQ has chosen to treat all DNFs as health score hits.

 

This is also logical to me.

 

In summary, what I see is:

 

1. There has always been a wide variation of opinion about when to log a DNF. (I would argue more so than with when to log a Find).

 

2. DNFs have always been "used" (by cachers, and sometimes reviewers) as an indication that a cache may be missing. But these humans* can read the logs. If I am looking for a cache to attempt, and I see one with a history of DNFs I look at the logs and make a determination if I want to attempt or not. Because of this human element, the variation of approach (point 1) didn't really matter.

 

3. Now, DNFs are counted by a tool. The tool can't read the logs. So it treats all DNFs the same. The tool can generate mails calling the CO to action. These emails can be ignored, though the way they are written doesn't convey that message.

 

Given where we are, what could Groundspeak do?

 

A. They could drop healthcheck tool, or at least drop counting DNFs. (I don't think this will happen).

 

B. They could update the help center to recommend something like the text quoted above. This would encourage more consistency of when DNFs are raised, and result in less "false positive" emails being sent out.

 

C. They could update the emails to add something like: "If you feel you have received this in error and that no action is needed, please let us know. You can log an OM log to restore the health score".

 

D. They can do nothing.

 

Given where we are, what could we as geocachers do?

 

E. We could alter our DNF logging process to only log a DNF when we reach GZ and do a "reasonable search" (if that isn't our process already).

 

F. We can keep our current DNF logging process, whatever it is.

 

The choice of E or F is a personal one.

 

I'm doing E. Simply because, now that I know my DNF will be treated by the tool as a "might be missing", I at least want to have searched GZ for the cache to provide some "evidence" that it might be missing.

 

*And possibly some dogs

[+Team Microdot]

Given where we are, what could Groundspeak do?

 

B. They could update the help center to recommend something like the text quoted above. This would encourage more consistency of when DNFs are raised, and result in less "false positive" emails being sent out.

 

Perhaps - in those circumstances where people have actually read and kept abreast of information in the help center.

 

Do we even know that these 'upsetting' emails are still being sent out?

 

C. They could update the emails to add something like: "If you feel you have received this in error and that no action is needed, please let us know. You can log an OM log to restore the health score".

 

Defeating the entire object of having a health score in the first place in many cases.