Demonising the DNF

[+niraD]

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

I don't think "press go" is the only alternative to "it depends". I use a "reach GZ and search" approach. Others use a "reach GZ" approach. Others use an "it must be missing" approach. Still others use a "never log DNFs" approach. I don't think those are really equivalent to the "it depends" approach as you describe it.

 

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

With all the talk about dnfs and there effect on the health score your really going to use that as an argument.

The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary. The current automated nag email triggered by the cache health score is temporary.

 

DNF logs have had meaning before these things existed. DNF logs can continue to have meaning long after these things have been fixed/improved/discarded/replaced.

[+The Jester]

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

 

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

Whether a cache is missing or not doesn't define a DNF. If you can't find a cache how can you say it is missing for sure? I don't know how many DNF's I've logged when the cache is there, I just missed it. Yes, there are some very easy caches that are obvious when missing, but I've DNF'd a couple of 1* caches that were there...

 

And, as been mentioned above a couple of times, a GC 'Find' is defined as signing the log, not just seeing/touching the container. No signature, no Find. So it is logical to log a DNF when you can't sign the log - as per the guidelines.

[+justintim1999]

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

I don't think "press go" is the only alternative to "it depends". I use a "reach GZ and search" approach. Others use a "reach GZ" approach. Others use an "it must be missing" approach. Still others use a "never log DNFs" approach. I don't think those are really equivalent to the "it depends" approach as you describe it.

 

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

With all the talk about dnfs and there effect on the health score your really going to use that as an argument.

The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary. The current automated nag email triggered by the cache health score is temporary.

 

DNF logs have had meaning before these things existed. DNF logs can continue to have meaning long after these things have been fixed/improved/discarded/replaced.

 

How do you know that the health score is temporary?

[+The Jester]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

I see it quite differently. Often the journey IS part of the search. Maybe because I started so early, back before maps were on the GPSr, but getting to GZ is sometimes the most difficult and longest part of the hunt.

 

You example of work doesn't have much to do with hunting caches - unless every day your job is somewhere new and unknown to you.

[+J Grouchy]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

I see it quite differently. Often the journey IS part of the search. Maybe because I started so early, back before maps were on the GPSr, but getting to GZ is sometimes the most difficult and longest part of the hunt.

 

You example of work doesn't have much to do with hunting caches - unless every day your job is somewhere new and unknown to you.

 

Sorry...no. The journey TO the cache location is NOT part of the search. It's a bonus, it's a benefit...but it's not the search. My trip to REI to buy a GPS isn't part of the search. My installing of software on the computer to interface with my GPS is not part of the search. My putting a particular cache listing on my GPS is not part of the search for that cache. My pulling the cache listing up on the website is not part of the search. All those things are part of the journey leading to me finding that cache, but they certainly don't qualify as part of the search. My belly isn't full when I decide to have lunch, pressing GO on the GPS isn't a magical threshold.

[+niraD]

The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary. The current automated nag email triggered by the cache health score is temporary.

 

DNF logs have had meaning before these things existed. DNF logs can continue to have meaning long after these things have been fixed/improved/discarded/replaced.

How do you know that the health score is temporary?

I said, "The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary."

 

I'm pretty sure Groundspeak will tinker with it at some point, so at best, it's a moving target. Hopefully, it will be improved to better accommodate the ways in which real people go geocaching.

[+justintim1999]

The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary. The current automated nag email triggered by the cache health score is temporary.

 

DNF logs have had meaning before these things existed. DNF logs can continue to have meaning long after these things have been fixed/improved/discarded/replaced.

How do you know that the health score is temporary?

I said, "The current implementation of the cache health score is temporary."

 

I'm pretty sure Groundspeak will tinker with it at some point, so at best, it's a moving target. Hopefully, it will be improved to better accommodate the ways in which real people go geocaching.

 

Amen to that.

[+Team Microdot]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

[+Team Microdot]

Sorry...no. The journey TO the cache location is NOT part of the search. It's a bonus, it's a benefit...but it's not the search. My trip to REI to buy a GPS isn't part of the search. My installing of software on the computer to interface with my GPS is not part of the search. My putting a particular cache listing on my GPS is not part of the search for that cache. My pulling the cache listing up on the website is not part of the search. All those things are part of the journey leading to me finding that cache, but they certainly don't qualify as part of the search. My belly isn't full when I decide to have lunch, pressing GO on the GPS isn't a magical threshold.

 

Is this another example of you using absurd examples in a bid to lend weight to your particular argument?

 

It certainly seems like a good way to render this thread useless - massive pointless exaggeration.

[+J Grouchy]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

No...you still are only searching at designated locations, at specific coordinates. The travel between GZs is incidental.

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry...no. The journey TO the cache location is NOT part of the search. It's a bonus, it's a benefit...but it's not the search. My trip to REI to buy a GPS isn't part of the search. My installing of software on the computer to interface with my GPS is not part of the search. My putting a particular cache listing on my GPS is not part of the search for that cache. My pulling the cache listing up on the website is not part of the search. All those things are part of the journey leading to me finding that cache, but they certainly don't qualify as part of the search. My belly isn't full when I decide to have lunch, pressing GO on the GPS isn't a magical threshold.

 

Is this another example of you using absurd examples in a bid to lend weight to your particular argument?

 

It certainly seems like a good way to render this thread useless - massive pointless exaggeration.

 

It's not exaggeration. If the fact that the argument is that walking out the door, that the INTENT to go to a cache is enough to warrant a DNF if there is no follow-through, then my own examples are entirely valid.

[+justintim1999]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

[+Team Microdot]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

 

You can debate that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant.

 

On a multi-cache I'm searching for the cache throughout the entire experience - it's just that there's steps to get there. It's a simple enough concept.

 

I just thought it worth pointing out the fact that claiming the journey has nothing to do with the cache is a falsehood.

[+justintim1999]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

 

You can debate that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant.

 

On a multi-cache I'm searching for the cache throughout the entire experience - it's just that there's steps to get there. It's a simple enough concept.

 

I just thought it worth pointing out the fact that claiming the journey has nothing to do with the cache is a falsehood.

 

To be precise I said the journey to gz haD nothing to do with actually SEARCHING for the cache.

[+Team Microdot]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

 

You can debate that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant.

 

On a multi-cache I'm searching for the cache throughout the entire experience - it's just that there's steps to get there. It's a simple enough concept.

 

I just thought it worth pointing out the fact that claiming the journey has nothing to do with the cache is a falsehood.

 

To be precise I said the journey to gz haD nothing to do with actually SEARCHING for the cache.

 

Very true - you did - apologies for the omission - trying to do two things at once.

 

We still completely disagree though. In fact there are posters on these forums for whom the finding of the cache is by far the least significant aspect of the experience.

[+bflentje]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

[+justintim1999]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

 

You can debate that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant.

 

On a multi-cache I'm searching for the cache throughout the entire experience - it's just that there's steps to get there. It's a simple enough concept.

 

I just thought it worth pointing out the fact that claiming the journey has nothing to do with the cache is a falsehood.

 

To be precise I said the journey to gz haD nothing to do with actually SEARCHING for the cache.

 

Very true - you did - apologies for the omission - trying to do two things at once.

 

We still completely disagree though. In fact there are posters on these forums for whom the finding of the cache is by far the least significant aspect of the experience.

 

I'm sure that's true but the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

[+Team Microdot]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

[+redsox_mark]

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

I don't think "press go" is the only alternative to "it depends". I use a "reach GZ and search" approach. Others use a "reach GZ" approach. Others use an "it must be missing" approach. Still others use a "never log DNFs" approach. I don't think those are really equivalent to the "it depends" approach as you describe it.

 

 

It is an over simplification, but I still think it is valid. With "press go" there is absolutely no judgement to be made. You pressed the button or you didn't.

 

With any other approach, I think there is some judgement. What if the second you get to GZ you get an emergency phone call? What if you were 1 foot from GZ? I guess you can define other algorithms which involve zero judgement 100% of the time, but in practice I think this is rare.

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

 

Man your reaching now.

 

Please don't assume you can put words in my mouth. spiteful was used to describe the attitude Bflentje exhibited in the post I responded to. It was directed at him/her and no one else. If anyone but you interpreted my post to include them than I apologize.

 

8 of the last 10 post you've made have little to contribute to the conversation. Instead they've focused on smearing others opinions in the hopes of discrediting everything they've said without really addressing any of the arguments they've forth.

 

That says all I need to know.

 

You can twist and manipulate everything I've said and those who decide to only read your comments may just believe what your saying.

 

You have any doubts about where I stand on anything feel free to actually ask a question and I'll give you a straight answer. I'll be happy to extend you that courtesy.

Edited June 30, 2017 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

 

Man your reaching now.

 

Please don't assume you can put words in my mouth. spiteful was used to describe the attitude Bflentje exhibited in the post I responded to. It was directed at him/her and no one else. If anyone but you interpreted my post to include them than I apologize.

 

8 of the last 10 post you've made have little to contribute to the conversation. Instead they've focused on smearing others opinions in the hopes of discrediting everything they've said without really addressing any of the arguments they've forth.

 

When I see anything approaching a decent argument that doesn't contradict itself from moment to moment I'll let you know

[+Mudfrog]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

No one is being spiteful. I'm sorry you're taking this so personal but like bfentje, i'm not letting Groundspeak's algorithm determine how i log caches. A cache gets a DNF log if i don't find it, period! Some of you seem to be taking this like it's the end of the world,, it's not.

 

Y'all have a good weekend!

[+BCandMsKitty]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

No one is being spiteful. I'm sorry you're taking this so personal but like bfentje, i'm not letting Groundspeak's algorithm determine how i log caches. A cache gets a DNF log if i don't find it, period! Some of you seem to be taking this like it's the end of the world,, it's not.

 

Y'all have a good weekend!

 

Exactly!

[+barefootjeff]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

If I got to stage 5 of an 8 stage multi and couldn't find the thing at that stage, be it virtual or physical, for me that'd be a DNF. I didn't find part of the cache. I don't understand why that wouldn't qualify as a DNF.

[+barefootjeff]

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

I don't think "press go" is the only alternative to "it depends". I use a "reach GZ and search" approach. Others use a "reach GZ" approach. Others use an "it must be missing" approach. Still others use a "never log DNFs" approach. I don't think those are really equivalent to the "it depends" approach as you describe it.

 

 

It is an over simplification, but I still think it is valid. With "press go" there is absolutely no judgement to be made. You pressed the button or you didn't.

 

With any other approach, I think there is some judgement. What if the second you get to GZ you get an emergency phone call? What if you were 1 foot from GZ? I guess you can define other algorithms which involve zero judgement 100% of the time, but in practice I think this is rare.

For me I guess, if the cache has a parking or trailhead waypoint that's where my attempt begins. If something in the environment stops me from reaching GZ, say the stream I had to cross is a raging torrent or the cliff is too steep for me to climb, I'd log a DNF, but if I just decided I'd had enough for the day or if I got a phone call telling me I needed to be somewhere else, I wouldn't. Does that make any sense?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

 

Although I agree that "beginning the search" is often somewhere in between GZ and up to 200' away, the thread is about demonizing DNFs and the "when does the search start" is somewhat of a tangent. For a two mile hike, if I've gone a mile and a half and encountered an insurmountable obstacle that prevented me from *finding* the cache, I'd probably post a DNF but a future seeker might encounter the same barrier to a Found It.

 

 

[+The Jester]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

You're the one telling people not to post DNF's. In most situations you've pushed to write a Note, not a DNF unless very stringent rules are met (enough time searching, "satisfied" with the search, blah, blah, blah). By not posting Notes, the health score isn't affected, but by not affecting the health score we take away something that helps reviewers. So which is it? Don't post DNF's for most cases of not finding a cache, to keep the health score high enough not to generate nag emails; or posting the DNF's so the tool can help reviews?

[+The Jester]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

I see it quite differently. Often the journey IS part of the search. Maybe because I started so early, back before maps were on the GPSr, but getting to GZ is sometimes the most difficult and longest part of the hunt.

 

You example of work doesn't have much to do with hunting caches - unless every day your job is somewhere new and unknown to you.

 

Sorry...no. The journey TO the cache location is NOT part of the search. It's a bonus, it's a benefit...but it's not the search.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Geocaching is a lot more than just the looking around GZ.

 

Now about the asurd exagerations:

 

My trip to REI to buy a GPS isn't part of the search.

But your not geocaching at that point.

 

My installing of software on the computer to interface with my GPS is not part of the search.

Again, your not geocaching then.

 

My putting a particular cache listing on my GPS is not part of the search for that cache.

Hmm, maybe, maybe not. Without this step you can't find GZ much less the cache...

 

My pulling the cache listing up on the website is not part of the search.

Really depends on the cache. Lots of puzzle caches this IS a part of the search, you need to get the co-ords...

 

All those things are part of the journey leading to me finding that cache, but they certainly don't qualify as part of the search. My belly isn't full when I decide to have lunch, pressing GO on the GPS isn't a magical threshold.

Where did you say the threshold was? 200 feet or something, I beleive. How/where do YOU determine that? For me it's pretty much when I hit the GO button. The search for GZ is part of the overall search. True, it's getting easier with mapping GPS'r, autorouting and trail maps that load on the GPSr. I can remember when a big componant of some caches was finding the access to GZ - threats of log deletion if you hinted where to find the trail were used. That sure changed around here with the NW Trail Project (which I've done a lot of mapping to help complete it, not done yet). So, while the tools have improved, finding the way to GZ is, at times, still a hunt (new developments not included on maps, trails not yet on maps). If you want to limit the definition of caching to just the search at GZ, that's fine - for YOU. But don't expect me (and others) to agree that your way is the one and only right way to define geocaching/the hunt.

[+barefootjeff]

I guess what we really need is a way to distinguish between DNFs that mean simply "I didn't find the cache today" and those where there's good evidence something's wrong with the cache that requires CO attention and a response. Oh wait, we used to have that: it was called an NM.

 

I suspect integrating NMs into the Found/DNF/WN logs might have originally been an attempt at encouraging their use in this situation, but it backfired badly when they removed the ability to put any meaningful information into the resulting NM log. So now they seem to have gone to the other extreme of saying you should skip NM altogether and log an NA if you can't find a cache that has several DNF logs on the page and no owner response.

 

On that point, in the past our reviewer has said "Without a relevant and recent 'Needs Maintenance' log being ignored by more than 28 days a cache owner no 'Needs Archiving' log will be acted on." Has that policy now changed in light of this Help Centre change?

[+bflentje]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

How rude you are. I merely spoke my opinion about the topic as a whole. Perhaps you've over estimated your importance here.

[+bflentje]

Checking in tonight to brag about the fact that I just logged five DNF's and proud of it.

[+Team Microdot]

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

I don't think "press go" is the only alternative to "it depends". I use a "reach GZ and search" approach. Others use a "reach GZ" approach. Others use an "it must be missing" approach. Still others use a "never log DNFs" approach. I don't think those are really equivalent to the "it depends" approach as you describe it.

 

 

It is an over simplification, but I still think it is valid. With "press go" there is absolutely no judgement to be made. You pressed the button or you didn't.

 

With any other approach, I think there is some judgement. What if the second you get to GZ you get an emergency phone call? What if you were 1 foot from GZ? I guess you can define other algorithms which involve zero judgement 100% of the time, but in practice I think this is rare.

For me I guess, if the cache has a parking or trailhead waypoint that's where my attempt begins. If something in the environment stops me from reaching GZ, say the stream I had to cross is a raging torrent or the cliff is too steep for me to climb, I'd log a DNF, but if I just decided I'd had enough for the day or if I got a phone call telling me I needed to be somewhere else, I wouldn't. Does that make any sense?

 

Yes - it does. This sounds like a commmon sense atitude that would align with my own.

 

It's not a million miles from the "press go" approach - a conscious choice, with boots on the ground, to search for a particular cache or not.

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

 

Man your reaching now.

 

Please don't assume you can put words in my mouth. spiteful was used to describe the attitude Bflentje exhibited in the post I responded to. It was directed at him/her and no one else. If anyone but you interpreted my post to include them than I apologize.

 

8 of the last 10 post you've made have little to contribute to the conversation. Instead they've focused on smearing others opinions in the hopes of discrediting everything they've said without really addressing any of the arguments they've forth.

 

When I see anything approaching a decent argument that doesn't contradict itself from moment to moment I'll let you know

 

Yup, that's what I thought.

[+justintim1999]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

If I got to stage 5 of an 8 stage multi and couldn't find the thing at that stage, be it virtual or physical, for me that'd be a DNF. I didn't find part of the cache. I don't understand why that wouldn't qualify as a DNF.

 

What if you "found" the first 5 stages and had to stop and couldn't attempt the next stage?

[+barefootjeff]

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache.

 

One classic example where that's incorrect is multi-caches.

 

Are we going to debate what constitutes a journey now? If I had to stop at stage 5 of an 8 stage multi I still wouldn't log a dnf. Doesn't change anything.

If I got to stage 5 of an 8 stage multi and couldn't find the thing at that stage, be it virtual or physical, for me that'd be a DNF. I didn't find part of the cache. I don't understand why that wouldn't qualify as a DNF.

 

What if you "found" the first 5 stages and had to stop and couldn't attempt the next stage?

It would depend on why I stopped. If it was something personal like a phone call or just getting too tired, I'd probably write a note describing my adventure so far and plans to continue it, as I did on GC6T5PZ, but if I stopped because some obstacle was preventing me from reaching stage 6 it'd likely be a DNF as, at that point at least, I'd been "defeated" by the cache.

 

Actually, having written that, it pretty much sums up the definition of my DNFs: I've been defeated by the cache. Whether it's because of a problem with me (most likely) or the cache (much less likely) is up to the CO to determine from my log, previous logs and perhaps a cache visit if he/she thinks it's warranted, unless I'm confident enough it's a cache problem to log an NM as well.

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

You're the one telling people not to post DNF's. In most situations you've pushed to write a Note, not a DNF unless very stringent rules are met (enough time searching, "satisfied" with the search, blah, blah, blah). By not posting Notes, the health score isn't affected, but by not affecting the health score we take away something that helps reviewers. So which is it? Don't post DNF's for most cases of not finding a cache, to keep the health score high enough not to generate nag emails; or posting the DNF's so the tool can help reviews?

 

I won't even ask you to go back and find the four or five times I've said I encourage the use of dnf's.

 

"Very stringent rules"? The only rule is actually get to gz and search.

 

In just about all the examples I've seen, no attempt was maid to reach gz let alone start searching.

 

I've got some questions for you. See if you can answer YES or NO only. Anyone else who would like to participate please do.

 

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

 

2. Dose a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

How rude you are. I merely spoke my opinion about the topic as a whole. Perhaps you've over estimated your importance here.

 

Likewise

[+justintim1999]

Checking in tonight to brag about the fact that I just logged five DNF's and proud of it.

 

Did you actually look for anything or did you circle your driveway and call it a day?

[+barefootjeff]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

You're the one telling people not to post DNF's. In most situations you've pushed to write a Note, not a DNF unless very stringent rules are met (enough time searching, "satisfied" with the search, blah, blah, blah). By not posting Notes, the health score isn't affected, but by not affecting the health score we take away something that helps reviewers. So which is it? Don't post DNF's for most cases of not finding a cache, to keep the health score high enough not to generate nag emails; or posting the DNF's so the tool can help reviews?

 

I won't even ask you to go back and find the four or five times I've said I encourage the use of dnf's.

 

"Very stringent rules"? The only rule is actually get to gz and search.

 

In just about all the examples I've seen, no attempt was maid to reach gz let alone start searching.

 

I've got some questions for you. See if you can answer YES or NO only. Anyone else who would like to participate please do.

 

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

 

2. Dose a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

I'll have a go, but I'll decline to answer just YES or NO as the answers to these questions aren't black-or-white.

 

1. It depends on the cache and what the DNFs say. If they're all about muggles, bad weather, too-hard-for-me-to-reach, etc. then NO. If the cache is a tricky hide (higher D rating) or there are obstacles to reaching it (higher T rating perhaps) then NO. On an easily reached D1 that's supposed to be sitting in plain sight, then YES. And if the multiple DNFs are interspersed with finds, then NO. The CO is the best one to judge, not some algorithm.

 

2. From what little we've been told about how it works or what we can infer from those who've incurred its wrath, then YES, unless it's been tweaked to require an outstanding NM before it starts counting DNFs.

 

3. Yes, the CO could have an accident while checking on a cache in response to a DNF, either directly or due to a CHS email. Or if the cache is a T4+, they'll probably spend the best part of a day on what they hope isn't a wild goose chase getting scratched, bitten and sore.

 

4. Australia's Macquarie Dictionary has some interesting variations: "to examine (someone) for concealed objects by going through their pockets or the like". Hmm, is that a cache in your pocket or...

Edited July 1, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Team Microdot]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

You're the one telling people not to post DNF's. In most situations you've pushed to write a Note, not a DNF unless very stringent rules are met (enough time searching, "satisfied" with the search, blah, blah, blah). By not posting Notes, the health score isn't affected, but by not affecting the health score we take away something that helps reviewers. So which is it? Don't post DNF's for most cases of not finding a cache, to keep the health score high enough not to generate nag emails; or posting the DNF's so the tool can help reviews?

 

I won't even ask you to go back and find the four or five times I've said I encourage the use of dnf's.

 

"Very stringent rules"? The only rule is actually get to gz and search.

 

In just about all the examples I've seen, no attempt was maid to reach gz let alone start searching.

 

I've got some questions for you. See if you can answer YES or NO only. Anyone else who would like to participate please do.

 

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

 

2. Dose a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

 

Yes and no in all cases.

[+niraD]

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

Sure. But a week passing since the last Find log also indicates that there MAY be a problem with the cache. And lots of other things indicate that there MAY be a problem with the cache.

 

But it's perfectly acceptable to me that there MAY be a problem with the cache.

 

The question is whether any of these things indicate a significant enough chance of a problem with the cache that Groundspeak or one of the volunteer reviewers should do something about it, and what kind of things would be appropriate for Groundspeak or one of the volunteer reviewers to do.

 

2. Dose a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log.

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log.

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

No, but it doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log either.

[+Team Microdot]

Two DNF's for me today.

 

As far as I know, both caches are in place.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+WearyTraveler]

Checking in tonight to brag about the fact that I just logged five DNF's and proud of it.

 

I drove to Cumberland today. 40 miles! Did a PQ of caches along the route. DNF'd them all!!!

[+The Jester]

I won't even ask you to go back and find the four or five times I've said I encourage the use of dnf's.

 

"Very stringent rules"? The only rule is actually get to gz and search.

 

In just about all the examples I've seen, no attempt was maid to reach gz let alone start searching.

Or go back and find the many more times you've advocated using WN instead of a DNF.

 

Your "rules" were a "long enough" seach and "satisfaction" with the search. Any thing less is a WN.

 

I've got some questions for you. See if you can answer YES or NO only. Anyone else who would like to participate please do.

 

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

YES in general, but NO in specifieds. How much of a chance there is a problem isn't determined by the number, but the content of the the DNF's.

 

2. Does a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

Unknown. Tweaks could have been made since the last discussion of the score. And does a single DNF affect the score? It may take more than one. I don't know.

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

Who knows? A very sensitive CO might have hurt feels when a DNF is posted. Or they might pull a muscle laughing when a DNF is posted on a very easy find. But I suspect that most CO's are not affected by posts one way or another.

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

Yes. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary on my desk says "1. to look through in trying to find something 2. SEEK 3. PROBE" Now begins the dictionary Wars! As Geocaching has a different definitions for "Find" & "Cache" than most dictionaries, so the term "search" may not match any one dictionary definition either.

 

What do these very biased, leading questions really have to do with posting or not posting a DNF? How about a YES or NO answer to my leading, biased question:

 

Does GC.com have any mechanism for listing/showing caches with my WN logs that only pertain to the search I've made for that cache (similar to the frowny face on the GC map)?

[+Team Microdot]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

 

Man your reaching now.

 

Please don't assume you can put words in my mouth. spiteful was used to describe the attitude Bflentje exhibited in the post I responded to. It was directed at him/her and no one else. If anyone but you interpreted my post to include them than I apologize.

 

8 of the last 10 post you've made have little to contribute to the conversation. Instead they've focused on smearing others opinions in the hopes of discrediting everything they've said without really addressing any of the arguments they've forth.

 

When I see anything approaching a decent argument that doesn't contradict itself from moment to moment I'll let you know

 

Yup, that's what I thought.

 

What specifically did you think?

[+justintim1999]

Tool or not.. algorithm or not.. I am still logging my DNF's.. every one of them. The way I see it is that if it affects someone else's cache, perhaps Groundspeak will eventually pickup on the problem. Finding a work around by no longer logging DNF's will do nothing.. as in it will never fix the problem.

 

Lets take something that helps reviewers (like the cache score) and refuse to try to help make it work simply out of spite.

 

Who said anything about no longer logging dnf's? Is anyone paying attention to what's being discussed here?

 

the finding (or not finding) of the cache is the most significant aspect to the cache owner, and that's really what we're discussing here.

 

The significance of finding (or not finding) of the cache and its significance to the cache owner according to you.

 

Or is it about helping reviewers or about how spiteful we all are?

 

It's hard to keep up. Perhaps you could help us all out by making your mind up?

 

Contradictory statements, scope changes, outlandish, exaggerated examples - not really the pinpoint focus you suggested in your last post.

 

 

Man your reaching now.

 

Please don't assume you can put words in my mouth. spiteful was used to describe the attitude Bflentje exhibited in the post I responded to. It was directed at him/her and no one else. If anyone but you interpreted my post to include them than I apologize.

 

8 of the last 10 post you've made have little to contribute to the conversation. Instead they've focused on smearing others opinions in the hopes of discrediting everything they've said without really addressing any of the arguments they've forth.

 

When I see anything approaching a decent argument that doesn't contradict itself from moment to moment I'll let you know

 

Yup, that's what I thought.

 

What specifically did you think?

 

I was hoping you and I could have an honest debate on the on the subject. After reading all the responses to my three simple YES or NO questions I see now that that's not possible.

[+justintim1999]

1. Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

Sure. But a week passing since the last Find log also indicates that there MAY be a problem with the cache. And lots of other things indicate that there MAY be a problem with the cache.

 

But it's perfectly acceptable to me that there MAY be a problem with the cache.

 

The question is whether any of these things indicate a significant enough chance of a problem with the cache that Groundspeak or one of the volunteer reviewers should do something about it, and what kind of things would be appropriate for Groundspeak or one of the volunteer reviewers to do.

 

2. Dose a dnf have a negative effect on the cache score?

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log.

 

3. COULD a dnf negatively effect a cache owner?

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log.

 

4. Here is the definition of "search" as listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something."

Do have any reason to disagree with this definition?

No, but it doesn't affect my decision to post a DNF log either.

 

I'll give you a shot as it seems you are trying to be honest and objective in answering the three questions.

 

Multiple dnf's have always been a yellow flag that something "might" be wrong with the cache. It seems people have a hard time even acknowledging that. To me a cache that might be missing is significant enough to warrant owner action therefore dnfs are significant enough for me to pay attention to. This kind of ties in with question 3.

 

As far as question 2 goes I'll have to rely on what I heard and read abut the health score unless a reviewer can tell me if dnfs are still being counted tward it?

 

I'll take a maybe on question 3. Maybe indicates that you agree that in some situations dnf's can have an effect on the cache owner.

 

I'll stop here until I can get an answer on dnf's and there effects on the cache score from a reviewer or we can find some common ground on the question.

[+Team Microdot]

I was hoping you and I could have an honest debate on the on the subject. After reading all the responses to my three simple YES or NO questions I see now that that's not possible.

 

Has somebody been dishonest?

[+justintim1999]

I was hoping you and I could have an honest debate on the on the subject. After reading all the responses to my three simple YES or NO questions I see now that that's not possible.

 

Has somebody been dishonest?

 

If you can't answer the questions Yes or no than why post anything at all. I should have requested this in the first place but it was....interesting to see how many people could actually do it.

 

Of course I expected your response to be vague with the added benefit of avoiding having to actually commit yourself to one side or the other.

Edited July 2, 2017 by justintim1999