Demonising the DNF

[+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?

 

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.

 

Ah - I see now.

 

Not dishonest then - just any answers which don't align with the expectations you had when you put together the questions in a way you thought would get the answers you wanted

 

And anybody not answering your questions in line with your expectations shouldn't post at all? And this is your idea of honest debate?

 

All meaning is context dependent. When you purposely stripped away all context therefore your questions became meaningless, the answers you wanted useless.

 

The thread relates to the real world - not some model of it carefully engineered by you in a bid to prove some point that has little or no basis in reality.

 

I doubt, based on other responses that you got, that my viewpoint is unique here.

[+Team Microdot]

Three DNF's today and three NA's.

 

And one find

Edited July 2, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+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.

 

Ah - I see now.

 

Not dishonest then - just any answers which don't align with the expectations you had when you put together the questions in a way you thought would get the answers you wanted

 

And anybody not answering your questions in line with your expectations shouldn't post at all? And this is your idea of honest debate?

 

All meaning is context dependent. When you purposely stripped away all context therefore your questions became meaningless, the answers you wanted useless.

 

The thread relates to the real world - not some model of it carefully engineered by you in a bid to prove some point that has little or no basis in reality.

 

I doubt, based on other responses that you got, that my viewpoint is unique here.

 

Just want each individuals straight, honest answers to the questions.

 

Got to be a reason why no one will answer them with a simple yes or no?

[+frinklabs]

Got to be a reason why no one will answer them with a simple yes or no?

 

My guess? Because it isn't a debate -- it is a cross-examination.

[+niraD]

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.

For some caches (including some of my Favorites), multiple DNFs are routine. For some DNFs, multiple DNFs indicate nothing whatsoever about the state of the cache.

 

If a cache hasn't been found in a week, then "something 'might' be wrong with the cache". If a cache hasn't been found in a month, then the chances are higher that "something 'might' be wrong with the cache". If a cache hasn't been found in a year, then the chances are even higher that "something 'might' be wrong with the cache".

 

And so on. There are any number of factors that could indicate that "something 'might' be wrong with the cache". So what?

 

Again, the question is whether any of these things indicate a significant enough chance of a problem with the cache that the CO or Groundspeak or one of the volunteer reviewers should do something about it, what should be done about it, and what the urgency is for that something being done.

 

You aren't getting yes-or-no answers because you didn't really ask yes-or-no questions, no matter how much you tried to frame them as such.

 

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.

Yes, I used the word "maybe", but the meaning of my answer is a lot closer to "Don't know, don't care" than you seem to have interpreted it.

 

Could the DNF itself "negatively effect a cache owner"? Perhaps. Some people might get bent out of shape by such things. But IMHO, such people aren't really cut out to be cache owners.

 

Could a nag email or some other automated response triggered by the DNF "negatively effect a cache owner"? Maybe. Maybe not. But IMHO, that's a problem with the nag email or other automated response, not with the DNF. Let's fix the real problem (i.e., the nag email or other automated response) rather than demonizing the DNF logs themselves.

[+barefootjeff]

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.

 

Ah - I see now.

 

Not dishonest then - just any answers which don't align with the expectations you had when you put together the questions in a way you thought would get the answers you wanted

 

And anybody not answering your questions in line with your expectations shouldn't post at all? And this is your idea of honest debate?

 

All meaning is context dependent. When you purposely stripped away all context therefore your questions became meaningless, the answers you wanted useless.

 

The thread relates to the real world - not some model of it carefully engineered by you in a bid to prove some point that has little or no basis in reality.

 

I doubt, based on other responses that you got, that my viewpoint is unique here.

 

Just want each individuals straight, honest answers to the questions.

 

Got to be a reason why no one will answer them with a simple yes or no?

Yes, the reason I stated with my answers - the questions as posed aren't black-or-white and don't have simple yes-or-no answers. Several DNFs on an LPC may well indicate a problem. Several DNFs on a D4 traditional would be the expected outcome. And as I've said before, none the 47 DNFs I've had across my hides have been due to a cache problem and I'd say that, for bushland hides in general in places where muggling is very unlikely, a DNF indicating a cache problem would be quite rare. One size doesn't fit all. Okay?

[+lee737]

Got to be a reason why no one will answer them with a simple yes or no?

 

My guess? Because it isn't a debate -- it is a cross-examination.

 

+1, and it is now a bit weird.....

 

 

[+lee737]

 

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?

 

 

1. YES

2. YES (it seems to, whatever the 'cache health score' is)

3. NO

4. NO

Edited July 2, 2017 by lee737

[+The Jester]

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.

 

Ah - I see now.

 

Not dishonest then - just any answers which don't align with the expectations you had when you put together the questions in a way you thought would get the answers you wanted

 

And anybody not answering your questions in line with your expectations shouldn't post at all? And this is your idea of honest debate?

 

All meaning is context dependent. When you purposely stripped away all context therefore your questions became meaningless, the answers you wanted useless.

 

The thread relates to the real world - not some model of it carefully engineered by you in a bid to prove some point that has little or no basis in reality.

 

I doubt, based on other responses that you got, that my viewpoint is unique here.

 

Just want each individuals straight, honest answers to the questions.

This statement implies that the answers given so far are not honest?

 

Got to be a reason why no one will answer them with a simple yes or no?

Maybe because a simple YES/NO answer to the questions is meaningless without context. Let's take a look at the first question: Do multiple dnfs indicate that their MAY be a problem with the cache?

First you need to define the meaning of "multiple DNFs" - does that mean lots of DNFs scattered throughout the logs, or only a string of nothing but DNFs? With the first meaning what would Yes or No mean? YES could mean a cache that's muggled easily and gets replaced often (found, DNF, OM, Found, DNF, OM...). NO could mean a high Diff cache that fools lots of people, but is still in play. With the second meaning, YES because anything MAY indicate a problem - even a Found log (how many Found logs mention wet/full logsheets). NO could also mean a high Diff cache fooling lots of people.

 

Second, you need to define what "MAY indicate a problem" means. Are you talking about just the existance of DNF logs, or the CONTENT of those logs. Multiple DNF's can come about for many reasons, without any problem with the cache itself. DNF's may indicate a problem with access to the cache (i.e.. parking lot closed for construction) but the cache is still there in good condition. A group of friends could leave a series of DNF's - but it was just one hunt that stumped a group and the cache is there in good shape.

 

Third, the answers can be looked a from different points of view. A YES answer (from your POV) may mean "they agree with me, so I'm right." YES from my POV means MAYBE, bbecause the question is written poorly as anything MAY indicate something (Your riged thinking/arguing with anyone who doesn't full agree with you, MAY indicate a problem that left untreated will end with you physiclly attacking anyone who disagrees with you - absurd, very unlikely, but MAY be true). A NO answer may be somebody else's way of say Maybe, but you don't allow that choice. A NO may also be somebody disagreeing with you and not wanting to give anything that you may look at as support of your position.

 

So, context is important, both in the question and the answer(s). For eaither to be relevant the WHY (context) needs to be addressed and understood.

[+bflentje]

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?

 

You want to compare stats before opening your mouth?

Edited July 3, 2017 by bflentje

[+Pond Bird]

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....

 

Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong.

[+narcissa]

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....

 

Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong.

 

So why do you keep asserting that cache owners should treat all DNFs as problems with the cache?

[+Team Microdot]

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?

 

You want to compare stats before opening your mouth?

 

Oops. Embarrassing

[+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?

 

You want to compare stats before opening your mouth?

 

Your 12,000 finds mean absolutely nothing to me. Absolutely zero.

 

Your going to need a little more than just your stats to shut my mouth.

[+justintim1999]

Agree or not here it is in a nutshell.

 

Dnf's have always been used to help gauge the health of a cache.

 

A good cache owner will take note of a dnf and respond if more follow.

 

There is evidence that multiple dnf's could be perceived by a reviewer as a potential problem with the cache.

 

In an attempt to avoid any unnecessary burden on reviewers and cache owners I only post a dnf when I've reached gz and searched.

[+barefootjeff]

Agree or not here it is in a nutshell.

 

Dnf's have always been used to help gauge the health of a cache.

 

A good cache owner will take note of a dnf and respond if more follow.

 

There is evidence that multiple dnf's could be perceived by a reviewer as a potential problem with the cache.

 

In an attempt to avoid any unnecessary burden on reviewers and cache owners I only post a dnf when I've reached gz and searched.

Could you please explain how a CO is meant to respond when it's clear from the content of the DNF logs that there's nothing wrong with the cache, or if it's a high D-rated cache that's meant to get a fair number of DNFs. Just because you don't log DNFs unless you're pretty sure the cache is missing doesn't mean everyone else plays the same way. COs have to live with people logging DNFs because it got dark or started raining or the mozzies were too aggressive or because, like many of the DNFs I've logged, their preconceptions are wrong and they've simply been looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The reality is that most DNFs don't indicate a cache problem, particularly for higher D/T rated caches when many other factors can result in a DNF.

 

Edit to add: If you want a response from the CO, just log an NM. Isn't that easier than trying to infer problems by counting DNFs?

Edited July 3, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+justintim1999]

Agree or not here it is in a nutshell.

 

Dnf's have always been used to help gauge the health of a cache.

 

A good cache owner will take note of a dnf and respond if more follow.

 

There is evidence that multiple dnf's could be perceived by a reviewer as a potential problem with the cache.

 

In an attempt to avoid any unnecessary burden on reviewers and cache owners I only post a dnf when I've reached gz and searched.

Could you please explain how a CO is meant to respond when it's clear from the content of the DNF logs that there's nothing wrong with the cache, or if it's a high D-rated cache that's meant to get a fair number of DNFs. Just because you don't log DNFs unless you're pretty sure the cache is missing doesn't mean everyone else plays the same way. COs have to live with people logging DNFs because it got dark or started raining or the mozzies were too aggressive or because, like many of the DNFs I've logged, their preconceptions are wrong and they've simply been looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The reality is that most DNFs don't indicate a cache problem, particularly for higher D/T rated caches when many other factors can result in a DNF.

 

I agree that the majority of dnfs don't indicate a problem especially if the log includes the details. I get my share of dnf's with no explanations so I'll have to assume they actually looked and a reviewer will have to assume the same. With GS pushing cache maintenance and the health score now in play I don't think you can afford to just ignore them anymore.

 

I wouldn't feel right if I posted a dnf without even looking for the cache and my dnf was the one that resulted in the cache being flagged or disabled. There's no guesswork involved when I post a dnf. The cache may or may not be missing but the cache owner knows I looked for it.

[+lee737]

 

Could you please explain how a CO is meant to respond when it's clear from the content of the DNF logs that there's nothing wrong with the cache, or if it's a high D-rated cache that's meant to get a fair number of DNFs. Just because you don't log DNFs unless you're pretty sure the cache is missing doesn't mean everyone else plays the same way. COs have to live with people logging DNFs because it got dark or started raining or the mozzies were too aggressive or because, like many of the DNFs I've logged, their preconceptions are wrong and they've simply been looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The reality is that most DNFs don't indicate a cache problem, particularly for higher D/T rated caches when many other factors can result in a DNF.

 

 

If the DNF content indicates other things at play (muggles/weather etc), then no response is needed.

If its a high-D rated cache - no response needed, to a point..... I don't know where that point is (maybe where the reviewer says it is?) - I think if you want to own one of these caches, be prepared to do the odd cache check!

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

 

Could you please explain how a CO is meant to respond when it's clear from the content of the DNF logs that there's nothing wrong with the cache, or if it's a high D-rated cache that's meant to get a fair number of DNFs. Just because you don't log DNFs unless you're pretty sure the cache is missing doesn't mean everyone else plays the same way. COs have to live with people logging DNFs because it got dark or started raining or the mozzies were too aggressive or because, like many of the DNFs I've logged, their preconceptions are wrong and they've simply been looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The reality is that most DNFs don't indicate a cache problem, particularly for higher D/T rated caches when many other factors can result in a DNF.

 

 

If the DNF content indicates other things at play (muggles/weather etc), then no response is needed.

If its a high-D rated cache - no response needed, to a point..... I don't know where that point is (maybe where the reviewer says it is?) - I think if you want to own one of these caches, be prepared to do the odd cache check!

That's the whole point - reviewers shouldn't be getting involved at all unless someone's logged an NA, and by rights that shouldn't happen for a potentially missing cache unless there's already an unaddressed NM. For a cache with no NMs it should be entirely up to the CO as to how he or she reacts to DNFs.

[+redsox_mark]

Firstly, we are never going to all agree. It is very clear that many do not want to consider any possibility of changing their own personal rules for logging a DNF (given changes in tools, health score etc), while others are willing to consider changing it.

 

DNF checking tools or not, I am thinking.. what is the difference between logging a note and a DNF (assuming the text of the log is the same).

 

There are of course differences for the cacher creating the log. Logging a DNF gives the option of the blue frown. Use of field notes linked to the DNF option on the GPS. If these (or other such features) are important to the cacher, they should feel free to log DNF even if they didn't reach GZ, do a good search, etc.

 

What are the main differences for the CO and other cachers? Some include:

1. A Tool can count a DNF as "might be missing", or "might be problems". Notes aren't counted in this way.

2. A DNF stands out more than a note. If I see a cache which I'm considering doing with a lot of DNFs, it will catch my eye. Notes generally won't.

 

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

If I have zero reasons to suspect any possible issue, I will log a Note or nothing.

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF. I'm pretty sure it is there, but I could not find it. A micro in the woods with the hint in a cut log.. in a wood with poor GPS reception and many cut logs. But I did look, so at least I have some reason to think there could be a possible issue (even if I think unlikely).

 

I'll never fully understand those who feel that they need to log DNF just because they pressed "go" and started. I understand the binary logic (you either found it or you didn't), but I don't understand ignoring how the DNFs are seen by others.

[+narcissa]

Firstly, we are never going to all agree. It is very clear that many do not want to consider any possibility of changing their own personal rules for logging a DNF (given changes in tools, health score etc), while others are willing to consider changing it.

 

DNF checking tools or not, I am thinking.. what is the difference between logging a note and a DNF (assuming the text of the log is the same).

 

There are of course differences for the cacher creating the log. Logging a DNF gives the option of the blue frown. Use of field notes linked to the DNF option on the GPS. If these (or other such features) are important to the cacher, they should feel free to log DNF even if they didn't reach GZ, do a good search, etc.

 

What are the main differences for the CO and other cachers? Some include:

1. A Tool can count a DNF as "might be missing", or "might be problems". Notes aren't counted in this way.

2. A DNF stands out more than a note. If I see a cache which I'm considering doing with a lot of DNFs, it will catch my eye. Notes generally won't.

 

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

If I have zero reasons to suspect any possible issue, I will log a Note or nothing.

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF. I'm pretty sure it is there, but I could not find it. A micro in the woods with the hint in a cut log.. in a wood with poor GPS reception and many cut logs. But I did look, so at least I have some reason to think there could be a possible issue (even if I think unlikely).

 

I'll never fully understand those who feel that they need to log DNF just because they pressed "go" and started. I understand the binary logic (you either found it or you didn't), but I don't understand ignoring how the DNFs are seen by others.

 

Now that DNFs are universally bad and stripped of context, we need to consider how the automated site features treat them. Before this auto-nag thing started up, it wasn't really a big deal if people had different ways of using them and it really didn't matter if someone else understood the decision or not. What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

[+Team Microdot]

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

Some would argue there's no reason why the log you describe here can't also be a note.

 

A note would convey precisely the same human-readable information.

 

So why choose one over the other at all (DNF vs note)?

[+justintim1999]

What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

 

I'd think the algorithm will only identify caches that have multiple dnf's that have not been addressed by the cache owner for some period of time.

 

"Unresponsive cache owner naughty."

[+redsox_mark]

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

Some would argue there's no reason why the log you describe here can't also be a note.

 

A note would convey precisely the same human-readable information.

 

So why choose one over the other at all (DNF vs note)?

 

I explained my logic why in the post you quoted. Of course, a Note can be used for any case where a DNF can be used.

[+justintim1999]

Firstly, we are never going to all agree. It is very clear that many do not want to consider any possibility of changing their own personal rules for logging a DNF (given changes in tools, health score etc), while others are willing to consider changing it.

 

DNF checking tools or not, I am thinking.. what is the difference between logging a note and a DNF (assuming the text of the log is the same).

 

There are of course differences for the cacher creating the log. Logging a DNF gives the option of the blue frown. Use of field notes linked to the DNF option on the GPS. If these (or other such features) are important to the cacher, they should feel free to log DNF even if they didn't reach GZ, do a good search, etc.

 

What are the main differences for the CO and other cachers? Some include:

1. A Tool can count a DNF as "might be missing", or "might be problems". Notes aren't counted in this way.

2. A DNF stands out more than a note. If I see a cache which I'm considering doing with a lot of DNFs, it will catch my eye. Notes generally won't.

 

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

If I have zero reasons to suspect any possible issue, I will log a Note or nothing.

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF. I'm pretty sure it is there, but I could not find it. A micro in the woods with the hint in a cut log.. in a wood with poor GPS reception and many cut logs. But I did look, so at least I have some reason to think there could be a possible issue (even if I think unlikely).

 

I'll never fully understand those who feel that they need to log DNF just because they pressed "go" and started. I understand the binary logic (you either found it or you didn't), but I don't understand ignoring how the DNFs are seen by others.

 

In the case of the bridge I'd post a note as I'd rather not have the algorithm count my dnf as something negative against the cache considering I never even reached gz and looked.

[+Team Microdot]

What I have decided to do myself is to log DNF when

1. I attempted but didn't find, and

2. The reason I didn't find is a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

 

Without giving a lot of examples (and prompting debate about each one), one DNF case for me is I reached GZ, looked, but didn't find. But I would also include other cases, such as the bridge or footpath leading to the cache is closed. That doesn't mean the cache might be missing (I have zero evidence about that), but there is a "possible issue" which is relevant.

 

Some would argue there's no reason why the log you describe here can't also be a note.

 

A note would convey precisely the same human-readable information.

 

So why choose one over the other at all (DNF vs note)?

 

I explained my logic why in the post you quoted. Of course, a Note can be used for any case where a DNF can be used.

 

Indeed it can.

 

What I'm interested in is the tipping point, the difference that makes a difference, that leads you to choose one over the other.

[+Team Microdot]

What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

 

I'd think the algorithm will only identify caches that have multiple dnf's that have not been addressed by the cache owner for some period of time.

 

 

Not sure it even does that.

 

I've had a few caches on watch for an extended period which fulfil those criteria and which have received zero attention from TPTB.

[+redsox_mark]

 

In the case of the bridge I'd post a note as I'd rather not have the algorithm count my dnf as something negative against the cache considering I never even reached gz and looked.

 

That's fine. And for me it may depend on exact details. But if this closed path/bridge makes it impossible for most cachers to access the cache then to me that is something worth highlighting, and I see this as an issue for the cache. Caches can have issues which stop me finding it apart from being missing.

 

Again, I don't expect everyone to make the same decision about each case. In my perfect world I would like everyone to at least consider the circumstances and log the way they think is most helpful.

[+justintim1999]

What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

 

I'd think the algorithm will only identify caches that have multiple dnf's that have not been addressed by the cache owner for some period of time.

 

 

Not sure it even does that.

 

I've had a few caches on watch for an extended period which fulfil those criteria and which have received zero attention from TPTB.

 

If they've found a way to weigh dnf's fairly than that's a good thing, right?

[+justintim1999]

 

In the case of the bridge I'd post a note as I'd rather not have the algorithm count my dnf as something negative against the cache considering I never even reached gz and looked.

 

That's fine. And for me it may depend on exact details. But if this closed path/bridge makes it impossible for most cachers to access the cache then to me that is something worth highlighting, and I see this as an issue for the cache. Caches can have issues which stop me finding it apart from being missing.

 

Again, I don't expect everyone to make the same decision about each case. In my perfect world I would like everyone to at least consider the circumstances and log the way they think is most helpful.

 

The only thought I have on that is a closed path or bridge is nothing the cache owner can control let alone fix. So why potentially burden them with a dnf in those cases?

[+Team Microdot]

What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

 

I'd think the algorithm will only identify caches that have multiple dnf's that have not been addressed by the cache owner for some period of time.

 

 

Not sure it even does that.

 

I've had a few caches on watch for an extended period which fulfil those criteria and which have received zero attention from TPTB.

 

If they've found a way to weigh dnf's fairly than that's a good thing, right?

 

I'd say it's a good thing if they've found a way to weigh DNF's more usefully then that's a good thing.

 

Then again - we are just speculating wildly on what the algorithm does and even if it is still in use at all.

 

For all we know, we truly are beating a dead horse.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Indeed it can.

 

What I'm interested in is the tipping point, the difference that makes a difference, that leads you to choose one over the other.

 

I tried to explain. If the reason I didn't find indicates a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

Because DNFs get noticed more.

 

So using "the bridge is closed" example, this is likely to be an issue, and I want the CO and other cachers to notice.

Looking for a cache and not finding it means a possible issue (could be missing).

 

My wife phoned me and I had to abort my journey to the cache doesn't indicate any possible issue. (With the cache).

[+Team Microdot]

 

Indeed it can.

 

What I'm interested in is the tipping point, the difference that makes a difference, that leads you to choose one over the other.

 

I tried to explain. If the reason I didn't find indicates a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

Because DNFs get noticed more.

 

So using "the bridge is closed" example, this is likely to be an issue, and I want the CO and other cachers to notice.

Looking for a cache and not finding it means a possible issue (could be missing).

 

My wife phoned me and I had to abort my journey to the cache doesn't indicate any possible issue. (With the cache).

 

A possible issue relevant to others can be conveyed just as well in a note.

 

My bold seems to be your motivation in this case for using DNF rather than a note.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Indeed it can.

 

What I'm interested in is the tipping point, the difference that makes a difference, that leads you to choose one over the other.

 

I tried to explain. If the reason I didn't find indicates a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

Because DNFs get noticed more.

 

So using "the bridge is closed" example, this is likely to be an issue, and I want the CO and other cachers to notice.

Looking for a cache and not finding it means a possible issue (could be missing).

 

My wife phoned me and I had to abort my journey to the cache doesn't indicate any possible issue. (With the cache).

 

A possible issue relevant to others can be conveyed just as well in a note.

 

My bold seems to be your motivation in this case for using DNF rather than a note.

 

Yes.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Indeed it can.

 

What I'm interested in is the tipping point, the difference that makes a difference, that leads you to choose one over the other.

 

I tried to explain. If the reason I didn't find indicates a possible issue which may be relevant to others.

Because DNFs get noticed more.

 

So using "the bridge is closed" example, this is likely to be an issue, and I want the CO and other cachers to notice.

Looking for a cache and not finding it means a possible issue (could be missing).

 

My wife phoned me and I had to abort my journey to the cache doesn't indicate any possible issue. (With the cache).

 

A possible issue relevant to others can be conveyed just as well in a note.

 

My bold seems to be your motivation in this case for using DNF rather than a note.

 

Yes.

 

So would it be fair to say that the degree of importance, relative to possible impact(s) on potential future finds, decides whether you would choose a DNF vs a note?

[+redsox_mark]

 

So would it be fair to say that the degree of importance, relative to possible impact(s) on potential future finds, decides whether you would choose a DNF vs a note?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

To loop this back around.. if the DNFs were not used to "hassle" the CO in any way, then it wouldn't matter to me much if DNFs were used for all cases where any geocaching activity was started which didn't end in a find. But given the "hassle", I don't want to cause possible noise (e.g a email) for something unimportant to the rest of the world that stopped me finishing.

 

I could take the approach to stop logging DNFs totally - just write notes - as that would convey the same information but stop tools causing automatic hassle.

 

I instead choose to continue to log DNFs but only the important/useful ones.

[+Team Microdot]

 

So would it be fair to say that the degree of importance, relative to possible impact(s) on potential future finds, decides whether you would choose a DNF vs a note?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

To loop this back around.. if the DNFs were not used to "hassle" the CO in any way, then it wouldn't matter to me much if DNFs were used for all cases where any geocaching activity was started which didn't end in a find. But given the "hassle", I don't want to cause possible noise (e.g a email) for something unimportant to the rest of the world that stopped me finishing.

 

I could take the approach to stop logging DNFs totally - just write notes - as that would convey the same information but stop tools causing automatic hassle.

 

I instead choose to continue to log DNFs but only the important/useful ones.

 

I think that pretty much sums up the approach I've always taken - regardless of the presence or absence of a health score.

[+redsox_mark]

 

So would it be fair to say that the degree of importance, relative to possible impact(s) on potential future finds, decides whether you would choose a DNF vs a note?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

To loop this back around.. if the DNFs were not used to "hassle" the CO in any way, then it wouldn't matter to me much if DNFs were used for all cases where any geocaching activity was started which didn't end in a find. But given the "hassle", I don't want to cause possible noise (e.g a email) for something unimportant to the rest of the world that stopped me finishing.

 

I could take the approach to stop logging DNFs totally - just write notes - as that would convey the same information but stop tools causing automatic hassle.

 

I instead choose to continue to log DNFs but only the important/useful ones.

 

I think that pretty much sums up the approach I've always taken - regardless of the presence or absence of a health score.

 

Same for me. One area I may change is the "I could not handle the terrain" case. E.g. I get to GZ, decide the tree climb is too difficult. I've generally logged a DNF in this case. But as there is no evidence of any issue with the cache, just an issue with me, I'm thinking a Note would be better for this case. There will probably be other cases. I won't agonize over the decision, it will just be in the back of my mind how DNF is being used when I log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.

 

I'd think the algorithm will only identify caches that have multiple dnf's that have not been addressed by the cache owner for some period of time.

 

"Unresponsive cache owner naughty."

 

It might be a good idea to *confirm* that's how it works before arguing that a CO doesn't need take any action if they believe the nag email is a false positive. There are lots of things we don't know about how the algorithm works. We don't know how much impact a high D or T rating has on the health score. We don't know if the algorithm treats multiple DNFs in a row on the same day (perhaps by a group of inexperienced geocachers) the same as several DNFs over a week or two. We don't how "has not been addressed is determined". We don't know what, if anything, will improve a health score. Will a OM log improve the score without consider the contents of the OM log? We don't how or even if a reviewer gets notification when a nag email message is sent. A lot of arguments are being made based on a lot of assumptions.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the case of the bridge I'd post a note as I'd rather not have the algorithm count my dnf as something negative against the cache considering I never even reached gz and looked.

 

That's fine. And for me it may depend on exact details. But if this closed path/bridge makes it impossible for most cachers to access the cache then to me that is something worth highlighting, and I see this as an issue for the cache. Caches can have issues which stop me finding it apart from being missing.

 

Agreed. I've seen more than a few caches that were temporarily inaccessible due to construction in the area. Instead of a broken bridge, bright yellow tape surrounding a a large area may be the barrier that prevents me (and others attempt to find the cache), from *finding the cache*. To me, something like that which prevents someone from finding the cache should get a DNF.

 

 

[+Team DEMP]

From what I see on caches by me, there's no health check catching caches with multiple DNFs AND multiple NMs. If there's no NA logged, they'd probably sit there forever in their missing or dilapidated state.

 

It would be best not to create or assume some issue exists when none appears to be in play. Log DNFs any way you want and whatever perceived change might or might not be in place shouldn't change that. Personally, I don't care how folks do or don't log DNFs just as I don't care if you don't log finds. If you don't want to, don't, but don't make it an issue for anyone that does.

 

[+barefootjeff]

 

So would it be fair to say that the degree of importance, relative to possible impact(s) on potential future finds, decides whether you would choose a DNF vs a note?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

To loop this back around.. if the DNFs were not used to "hassle" the CO in any way, then it wouldn't matter to me much if DNFs were used for all cases where any geocaching activity was started which didn't end in a find. But given the "hassle", I don't want to cause possible noise (e.g a email) for something unimportant to the rest of the world that stopped me finishing.

 

I could take the approach to stop logging DNFs totally - just write notes - as that would convey the same information but stop tools causing automatic hassle.

 

I instead choose to continue to log DNFs but only the important/useful ones.

 

I think that pretty much sums up the approach I've always taken - regardless of the presence or absence of a health score.

 

Same for me. One area I may change is the "I could not handle the terrain" case. E.g. I get to GZ, decide the tree climb is too difficult. I've generally logged a DNF in this case. But as there is no evidence of any issue with the cache, just an issue with me, I'm thinking a Note would be better for this case. There will probably be other cases. I won't agonize over the decision, it will just be in the back of my mind how DNF is being used when I log.

I use WNs for a whole lot of other reasons, most commonly TB drops or if I'm logging a progress report on an extended multi. I'd really like to continue to be able to flag those caches that have defeated me on the day so I can either come back to them another time or avoid them if they weren't to my liking, without effectively flagging them as needing maintenance.

 

The showing of DNFs on the map greatly enhances this application, which seems strange given that at the same time they're trying to equate DNF to "the cache is probably missing". Why would you want to show missing caches on the map?

[+Pond Bird]

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....

 

Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong.

 

So why do you keep asserting that cache owners should treat all DNFs as problems with the cache?

 

First of all I'm not "asserting" anything. IF a cache is receiving DNFs that usually has people finding it then the CO should check on it to see if its still there. IF there are DNFs that are not legitamite searches then thats one thing but the content of the DNF logs should be looked at to see:

 

1. Did the person search? IF no, cache could still be in play. If Yes, see question 2

2. Did the person search for a reasonable amount of time? If NO, cache could be hard to find and still be in play. If YES, cache could have a rating that is lower than what it should be AND/OR cache could be missing.

 

If both questions are answered YES for multiple DNFs its definately time for the cache to be checked on to confirm it is or isn't still findable.

[+Team DEMP]

The thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344999 seems to be validating there's no need to change behavior on DNFs/NMs and there's no undesired action being taken by continued logging off those log types.

Log those DNFs, NMs and NAs

[+Team Microdot]

The thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344999 seems to be validating there's no need to change behavior on DNFs/NMs and there's no undesired action being taken by continued logging off those log types.

Log those DNFs, NMs and NAs

 

I tend to agree.

 

But then I've always expected that to be the case.

[+redsox_mark]

The thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344999 seems to be validating there's no need to change behavior on DNFs/NMs and there's no undesired action being taken by continued logging off those log types.

Log those DNFs, NMs and NAs

 

I don't come to quite the same conclusion. That other thread assures me that reviewers will use their judgement and caches won't get archived just because of the health score. That's good.

 

But it still remains that cache owners will get emails from the tool which request they take action if they get too many DNFs. The tool can't read the logs and make judgements.

 

So I still maintain that logging DNFs for cases where there isn't any issue (or evidence of possible issue) doesn't add value and can cause needless emails to the CO.

 

Example: 10 cachers start their journey to a cache in a minivan. They all subscribe to the "if I press go, I must log either find or DNF" method. They all press "go". The van breaks down, they abort the mission. They log 10 DNFs.

 

I know that's an extreme example, but I still feel it makes sense to consider the health score and avoid logging such experiences as DNF.

 

My conclusion: Keep logging those DNF/MN/NA logs as you feel are appropriate, but consider if it is really helpful to log a DNF for cases where you aborted the search for personal reasons.

[+justintim1999]

The thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344999 seems to be validating there's no need to change behavior on DNFs/NMs and there's no undesired action being taken by continued logging off those log types.

Log those DNFs, NMs and NAs

 

The cache score aside, in my mind there are other undesired consequences.

 

If people are posting dnfs without ever reaching gz and searching than I'll probably wind up needlessly heading out to check up on it. Others may avoid a perfectly good cache because of those dnfs.

 

As a cache owner I absolutely appreciate dnfs and, NM's. If there is something wrong with my cache I want to know about it and fix it.

 

I believe a dnf should only be used if you reach gz and have searched. Any other reason for not finding the cache should be indicated in a note. Right or wrong it's just how I do it.

[+Team DEMP]

 

But it still remains that cache owners will get emails from the tool which request they take action if they get too many DNFs. The tool can't read the logs and make judgements.

 

 

So we have direct feedback from reviewers indicating there's no adverse impact from the process. Do you have any info that backs your claim that receiving the email is causing any issue? And more importantly, it doesn't seem any further system action is taken as a result of the email, regardless of what the CO does or doesn't do. Again, it seems some are manifesting a problem where one doesn't exist.

[+Team DEMP]

If people are posting dnfs without ever reaching gz and searching than I'll probably wind up needlessly heading out to check up on it. Others may avoid a perfectly good cache because of those dnfs.

 

Aren't you reading the logs that provide any insight into the cacher's experience or you just filter on the subject of your owner email and take action based on that? I've not experience someone posting a DNF without info for me to assess the situation, just as the reviewers appear to be doing for those that are checking possibly problem caches?

[+Team Microdot]

The thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344999 seems to be validating there's no need to change behavior on DNFs/NMs and there's no undesired action being taken by continued logging off those log types.

Log those DNFs, NMs and NAs

 

The cache score aside, in my mind there are other undesired consequences.

 

If people are posting dnfs without ever reaching gz and searching than I'll probably wind up needlessly heading out to check up on it. Others may avoid a perfectly good cache because of those dnfs.

 

Unless of course you/they can read, exercise judgement and respond appropriately.