Demonising the DNF

[+thebruce0]

I don't know where I asked for your sympathy or mentioned pain.

You didn't. But I assume you can understand this progression:

 

1. "I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action"

 

2. I and many will continue to log DNFs that do not require CO action, for interest's sake and relevance to the other cachers, also causing you "annoyance and insult" if it happens to trigger a "nag" email.

 

3. I have no sympathy for such "annoyance and insult". It's negligible at absolute worst. Delete the email and move on (ideally if you know there is no issue, and if there is ideally you wouldn't ignore it, as you imply you do by saying DNFs on your caches have no value to you).

 

* And I'll continue to let other COs who are worried by the email know of this 'way around', at least until the wording on the email is adjusted, or Groundspeak does decide to implement some automated 'hit' against any and all 'nagged' caches.

 

It is quite clear from this thread that depending on which half of the forum mob is complaining, I am sticking it to my fellow cachers whether I log my DNFs or not.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Really. Posting your relevant DNFs is not sticking it to other cachers. No matter what you believe. It's using the system as it was intended to be used. The side effect is minimal at best, and completely harmless. Totally. 100%. You are sticking it to no one by continuing to log your DNFs.

 

Since I am one of those dreaded "once I hit go" kind of DNFers and I write DNFs mainly for my own records and personal enjoyment, it seems quite clear that I am misusing the system if I continue.

Nope. If you continue, you are using the system exactly as it was designed to be used, the way that works best for you, which consists of relevant information (in your case, info for you; and unbeknownst or unimportant to you, likely quite a number of other people as well, assuming you don't post empty DNF logs).

 

Categorizing my DNFs according to some arbitrary worthiness of search is an effort I am not willing to make.

 

Then don't. Only one person in this thread seems to really be emphasizing something along those lines, and he's getting a lot of push back. No need to play the victim. But you are playing a sort of antagonist if you withhold ALL of your DNFs from COs and cachers who may find them helpful and informational.

 

No, this is not implying you are required to log every DNF. But your motivation for withholding is antagonistic, and not just making a point to Groundspeak, but leading to collateral damage to the community.

 

Log your DNFs as you always have, because they have value to the CO and other cachers, even if you only create them for yourself.

 

Don't let the system get you down, man

Edited July 12, 2017 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

I don't know where I asked for your sympathy or mentioned pain.

You didn't. But I assume you can understand this progression:

 

1. "I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action"

 

2. I and many will continue to log DNFs that do not require CO action, for interest's sake and relevance to the other cachers, also causing you "annoyance and insult" if it happens to trigger a "nag" email.

 

3. I have no sympathy for such "annoyance and insult". It's negligible at absolute worst. Delete the email and move on (ideally if you know there is no issue, and if there is ideally you wouldn't ignore it, as you imply you do by saying DNFs on your caches have no value to you).

 

* And I'll continue to let other COs who are worried by the email know of this 'way around', at least until the wording on the email is adjusted, or Groundspeak does decide to implement some automated 'hit' against any and all 'nagged' caches.

 

It is quite clear from this thread that depending on which half of the forum mob is complaining, I am sticking it to my fellow cachers whether I log my DNFs or not.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Really. Posting your relevant DNFs is not sticking it to other cachers. No matter what you believe. It's using the system as it was intended to be used. The side effect is minimal at best, and completely harmless. Totally. 100%. You are sticking it to no one by continuing to log your DNFs.

 

Since I am one of those dreaded "once I hit go" kind of DNFers and I write DNFs mainly for my own records and personal enjoyment, it seems quite clear that I am misusing the system if I continue.

Nope. If you continue, you are using the system exactly as it was designed to be used, the way that works best for you, which consists of relevant information (in your case, info for you; and unbeknownst or unimportant to you, likely quite a number of other people as well, assuming you don't post empty DNF logs).

 

Categorizing my DNFs according to some arbitrary worthiness of search is an effort I am not willing to make.

 

Then don't. Only one person in this thread seems to really be emphasizing something along those lines, and he's getting a lot of push back. No need to play the victim. But you are playing a sort of antagonist if you withhold ALL of your DNFs from COs and cachers who may find them helpful and informational.

 

No, this is not implying you are required to log every DNF. But your motivation for withholding is antagonistic, and not just making a point to Groundspeak, but leading to collateral damage to the community.

 

Log your DNFs as you always have, because they have value to the CO and other cachers, even if you only create them for yourself.

 

Don't let the system get you down, man

 

Other users have posted lengthy manifestos about how my kind of logging is bad and wrong.

 

But not logging my way is also bad and wrong.

 

Awesome. Thanks for clarifying, forum!

[+redsox_mark]

To sum this up for me, this is what I'm doing differently because of the Health Score/Emails.

 

Previously: I would log a DNF if the reason for not finding was something I considered "geocaching related". That includes, for example:

a. Got to GZ and looked

b. Could not get to GZ because the bridge (which is the expected route to the cache) is closed.

c. Got to GZ, saw the cache in the tree, but I could not climb.

 

I would not log a DNF in cases like

 

d. I took one step on the trail when my wife phoned and told me I needed to come home immediately.

 

Now: I log a DNF if I failed to find it and I have some evidence of a possible issue. Using the examples above, there is no change except case c. As I have no evidence of an issue (in fact I can see the cache), I will no longer log a DNF. Why? Because 1) I don't want to impact the cache's health score for a personal decision not to climb, and 2) I don't have a personal need to log it as a DNF.

 

These examples are not an exhaustive list. In all cases, I'll make a decision case by case, using the criteria "Do I have some evidence of a possible issue".

 

I would say for 95% of my DNFs, there is no change to what I did before.

[+narcissa]

To sum this up for me, this is what I'm doing differently because of the Health Score/Emails.

 

Previously: I would log a DNF if the reason for not finding was something I considered "geocaching related". That includes, for example:

a. Got to GZ and looked

b. Could not get to GZ because the bridge (which is the expected route to the cache) is closed.

c. Got to GZ, saw the cache in the tree, but I could not climb.

 

I would not log a DNF in cases like

 

d. I took one step on the trail when my wife phoned and told me I needed to come home immediately.

 

Now: I log a DNF if I failed to find it and I have some evidence of a possible issue. Using the examples above, there is no change except case c. As I have no evidence of an issue (in fact I can see the cache), I will no longer log a DNF. Why? Because 1) I don't want to impact the cache's health score for a personal decision not to climb, and 2) I don't have a personal need to log it as a DNF.

 

These examples are not an exhaustive list. In all cases, I'll make a decision case by case, using the criteria "Do I have some evidence of a possible issue".

 

I would say for 95% of my DNFs, there is no change to what I did before.

 

In case D, I would still want the record of having started an approach even if my reason for quitting was not relevant to anyone but me. At that point, for me, it becomes a cache I have started and would like to finish soon.

 

I don't want to divide my DNF records into those I post online and those I don't.

 

I was thinking that with field notes I can just let them accumulate as un-logged notes and delete them when I have found them. It isn't ideal but it's at least still somewhat streamlined with my activity in the field.

[+barefootjeff]

To sum this up for me, this is what I'm doing differently because of the Health Score/Emails.

 

Previously: I would log a DNF if the reason for not finding was something I considered "geocaching related". That includes, for example:

a. Got to GZ and looked

b. Could not get to GZ because the bridge (which is the expected route to the cache) is closed.

c. Got to GZ, saw the cache in the tree, but I could not climb.

 

I would not log a DNF in cases like

 

d. I took one step on the trail when my wife phoned and told me I needed to come home immediately.

 

Now: I log a DNF if I failed to find it and I have some evidence of a possible issue. Using the examples above, there is no change except case c. As I have no evidence of an issue (in fact I can see the cache), I will no longer log a DNF. Why? Because 1) I don't want to impact the cache's health score for a personal decision not to climb, and 2) I don't have a personal need to log it as a DNF.

 

These examples are not an exhaustive list. In all cases, I'll make a decision case by case, using the criteria "Do I have some evidence of a possible issue".

 

I would say for 95% of my DNFs, there is no change to what I did before.

I'd say in the vast majority of DNFs I've logged, I've had no evidence of a possible issue. The only cases that immediately come to mind where that wasn't the case was one where the CO had provided a photo of the cache in position and I was able to take an equivalent photo of an empty space where the cache should have been, and one where I found the mounting for the cache but no cache. And even in the latter I wasn't entirely sure because plenty of times I've found what I thought was the remains of a muggled cache, only to find it was just someone's rubbish and the actual cache was fine, although it turned out this time the cache really was missing.

 

I'm my own worst enemy when it comes to finding caches and most of the time, if I log a DNF, it simply means I couldn't find it. It saddens me that this once innocuous and useful^* log is now being turned into a virtual NM or NA for no tangible benefit.

 

*Useful to me to look back on and moan, useful to the CO for a good laugh, and useful to other seekers to know what pitfalls to avoid.

[+justintim1999]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Just to clarify it for me, if you reach GZ, search, draw a blank on all the obvious spots, then peer over the edge of the cliff onto the narrow ledge below and sure enough, there it is but you can't reach it because you're not confident you could safely climb down there, is that a DNF or a WN (or perhaps even a find if the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is anything to go by)?

 

And in the case of multis or multi-stage mysteries, is reaching a waypoint and unsuccessfully searching the same as "reaching GZ"? Or is it always a note until you get all the way to GZ and luck out there?

 

In the first example I'd post a note. I wouldn't post a dnf because I found the cache but couldn't or wouldn't retrieve the container. I wouldn't post a find on it because I didn't sign the log.

 

Lets say it was a 5 stage multi and I found the first 4 stages and had to stop for whatever reason. I'd either post nothing at that time or I'd post a note explaining I had to stop and would be back to finish. If I couldn't find any one of the waypoints or the final I'd post a dnf.

 

Mystery caches are an all together different animal. If I've solved the puzzle and verified the correct location either by a geochecker or the cache owner I'd post a dnf if I couldn't find the container. All other failed attempts would be logged with a note.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I'd say in the vast majority of DNFs I've logged, I've had no evidence of a possible issue.

 

Sorry I should have defined "evidence". If I looked and didn't find it, that is evidence that it might be missing. It is worth me logging an DNF. If others also don't find it, that adds more "evidence". I didn't mean evidence to mean finding physical evidence of a problem. If I look and find bits of a broken box and some broken swag, that is stronger evidence of an issue.

[+justintim1999]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Everyone understands how you feel about your own logs. What's not clear is whether you are telling other people when to call their logs DNFs. You seem to be supporting the health score as a useful tool, which implies you think everyone should log their DNFs with the same criteria you use. Is that the case or not?

 

To me, it isn't about when the search starts; it is about why the search finishes.

This is kinda the way I look at it, although I'd say that it depends on why my quest finishes because that might be before anything anyone would call "a search" started.

 

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem. I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Just to clarify it for me, if you reach GZ, search, draw a blank on all the obvious spots, then peer over the edge of the cliff onto the narrow ledge below and sure enough, there it is but you can't reach it because you're not confident you could safely climb down there, is that a DNF or a WN (or perhaps even a find if the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is anything to go by)?

 

And in the case of multis or multi-stage mysteries, is reaching a waypoint and unsuccessfully searching the same as "reaching GZ"? Or is it always a note until you get all the way to GZ and luck out there?

 

In the first example I'd post a note. I wouldn't post a dnf because I found the cache but couldn't or wouldn't retrieve the container. I wouldn't post a find on it because I didn't sign the log.

 

In that example I would post a DNF. A "find" as defined by GS means that you've located the container *and* signed the log. In that example, you only located the container. You didn't "find" the cache. I'd post a DNF because a future seeker might have the same result (not finding the cache) due to how/where the cache is hidden. Being able to locate the container but, due to how/where the container is hidden, is information useful to future seekers and a DNF conveys that better than a note.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem.

 

Their primary function is obviously, to me at least, as a mechanism to allow people to record the fact that they didn't find a cache.

 

Anything else is gravy.

 

I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

I completely eradicate the need to interpret my DNF's by explaining events clearly in my logs.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

 

Because reading logs is such a pain

[+justintim1999]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Just to clarify it for me, if you reach GZ, search, draw a blank on all the obvious spots, then peer over the edge of the cliff onto the narrow ledge below and sure enough, there it is but you can't reach it because you're not confident you could safely climb down there, is that a DNF or a WN (or perhaps even a find if the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is anything to go by)?

 

And in the case of multis or multi-stage mysteries, is reaching a waypoint and unsuccessfully searching the same as "reaching GZ"? Or is it always a note until you get all the way to GZ and luck out there?

 

In the first example I'd post a note. I wouldn't post a dnf because I found the cache but couldn't or wouldn't retrieve the container. I wouldn't post a find on it because I didn't sign the log.

 

In that example I would post a DNF. A "find" as defined by GS means that you've located the container *and* signed the log. In that example, you only located the container. You didn't "find" the cache. I'd post a DNF because a future seeker might have the same result (not finding the cache) due to how/where the cache is hidden. Being able to locate the container but, due to how/where the container is hidden, is information useful to future seekers and a DNF conveys that better than a note.

 

To my way of thinking that dnf could indicate that the cache is missing. If I found it and can see it than I know that's not the case. It doesn't make sense to me to post a "did not find" when you "did find" the cache but were unwilling or unable to attempt the retrieval.

[+justintim1999]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem.

 

Their primary function is obviously, to me at least, as a mechanism to allow people to record the fact that they didn't find a cache.

 

Anything else is gravy.

 

I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

I completely eradicate the need to interpret my DNF's by explaining events clearly in my logs.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

 

Because reading logs is such a pain

 

I admit I don't read all the logs on every cache I decide to go after although a NM and a bunch of DNFs to jump out at me.

 

I'm not sure if the mechanism being used to determine the cache score can read logs?

[+Team Microdot]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem.

 

Their primary function is obviously, to me at least, as a mechanism to allow people to record the fact that they didn't find a cache.

 

Anything else is gravy.

 

I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

I completely eradicate the need to interpret my DNF's by explaining events clearly in my logs.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

 

Because reading logs is such a pain

 

I admit I don't read all the logs on every cache I decide to go after although a NM and a bunch of DNFs to jump out at me.

 

I'm not sure if the mechanism being used to determine the cache score can read logs?

 

Highly unlikely but in no way critical.

[+justintim1999]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem.

 

Their primary function is obviously, to me at least, as a mechanism to allow people to record the fact that they didn't find a cache.

 

Anything else is gravy.

 

I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

I completely eradicate the need to interpret my DNF's by explaining events clearly in my logs.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

 

Because reading logs is such a pain

 

I admit I don't read all the logs on every cache I decide to go after although a NM and a bunch of DNFs to jump out at me.

 

I'm not sure if the mechanism being used to determine the cache score can read logs?

 

Highly unlikely but in no way critical.

 

I agree it's not critical but it is relevant.

[+redsox_mark]

As this thread has rambled so much.. looking back at the OP... The issue was the help center suggests to log NA if:

 

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

 

Hopefully a cacher who could not find a cache would look at the previous DNF logs before raising NA. If there were "several" DNFs but they all say the cacher never actually reached GZ to look, they would not raise an NA. Obviously the CO would have no reason to respond to "I'm logging DNF because I pressed go, but I never got there" logs.

 

Much of the discussion has been about the health score and the tool/emails. I think it is safe to assume the tool is not trying to understand the text inside the DNF log. So the tool sees each DNF as a "possible issue". Which is why many of the posts suggest at least considering the existence of the tool and the emails when choosing the log type "DNF".

[+barefootjeff]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem. I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

This is the crux of where we differ. To me, your sentence that I've bolded is the definition of an NM. For me, my DNF's just simply say "I didn't find it, the cache or its environment defeated me today". I don't know, it seems somewhere along the line people stopped using NM to "alert cache owners of a potential problem" - I gather in some places NMs are now considered insults - so DNF, or an interpretation of DNF, came to take its place.

 

So what will happen when everyone stops using NM and instead logs DNF to alert cache owners of a potential problem? Will DNF then be considered an insult, and will everyone then only use WN when they can't find it and the cache health score start counting WNs to decide that a cache is probably missing? Where will it end?

[+redsox_mark]

 

So what will happen when everyone stops using NM and instead logs DNF to alert cache owners of a potential problem? Will DNF then be considered an insult, and will everyone then only use WN when they can't find it and the cache health score start counting WNs to decide that a cache is probably missing? Where will it end?

 

I don't think that will happen.

 

And I don't see NM and DNF as the same. I would not log NM unless either I see an issue (e.g. broken container), or there is substantial evidence of a possible issue (e.g. many DNFs on a cache which normally is easy to find).

[+justintim1999]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem. I try to take the guesswork out of interpreting my dnfs. If I post one,

you can be sure I've reached gz and searched. The cache owner is free to use that information as they choose.

 

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

This is the crux of where we differ. To me, your sentence that I've bolded is the definition of an NM. For me, my DNF's just simply say "I didn't find it, the cache or its environment defeated me today". I don't know, it seems somewhere along the line people stopped using NM to "alert cache owners of a potential problem" - I gather in some places NMs are now considered insults - so DNF, or an interpretation of DNF, came to take its place.

 

So what will happen when everyone stops using NM and instead logs DNF to alert cache owners of a potential problem? Will DNF then be considered an insult, and will everyone then only use WN when they can't find it and the cache health score start counting WNs to decide that a cache is probably missing? Where will it end?

 

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf. In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I use a needs maintenance log when I've found the cache and it needs the cache owners attention or if the general area has changed or become unsafe. As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

I see the health score as something that helps reviewers and I think it's here to stay.

 

Having said that I have two choices. I can continue to do things as I've always done them or I can change a few things to help support the current system. I understand that this is easy for me because the way I use the various logs allows me to do both.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf.

 

Whether or not you find the cache is largely outside the owner's control, unless they come along to GZ with you. Maybe that's the next step in this evolution

 

In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I've had NM's on my caches when people couldn't find them, only to dutifully go out to GZ to check them out and find the cache in good order precisely where I left it. Ergo I would argue that NM is still only may indicate an issue.

 

As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

Completely agree. There are vocal cachers in my area though who have poisoned the well in this regard by treating NM's as a gross insult.

[+Team Microdot]

Where will it end?

 

People taking their own cache to GZ and thanking the CO.... for.... nothing!

 

A truly fabulous experience.

[+justintim1999]

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf.

 

Whether or not you find the cache is largely outside the owner's control, unless they come along to GZ with you. Maybe that's the next step in this evolution

 

In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I've had NM's on my caches when people couldn't find them, only to dutifully go out to GZ to check them out and find the cache in good order precisely where I left it. Ergo I would argue that NM is still only may indicate an issue.

 

As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

Completely agree. There are vocal cachers in my area though who have poisoned the well in this regard by treating NM's as a gross insult.

 

To me each individual cacher's abilities has nothing to do with choosing the correct log to document their experience.

 

If you've had NM's posted on your caches when DNF's should have been used than you have first hand knowledge of how the miss use of a log can effect a cache owner. Your unnecessary trip to gz is exactly what I'd like to try to avoid.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf.

 

Whether or not you find the cache is largely outside the owner's control, unless they come along to GZ with you. Maybe that's the next step in this evolution

 

In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I've had NM's on my caches when people couldn't find them, only to dutifully go out to GZ to check them out and find the cache in good order precisely where I left it. Ergo I would argue that NM is still only may indicate an issue.

 

As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

Completely agree. There are vocal cachers in my area though who have poisoned the well in this regard by treating NM's as a gross insult.

 

To me each individual cacher's abilities has nothing to do with choosing the correct log to document their experience.

 

I was just helping you to see a clear example of issue that's out of the cache owner's control as reason to post a dnf. That issue is called a DNF and is the most common reason that people post DNF logs, often for reasons outside the cache owner's control.

 

If you've had NM's posted on your caches when DNF's should have been used than you have first hand knowledge of how the miss use of a log can effect a cache owner. Your unnecessary trip to gz is exactly what I'd like to try to avoid.

 

By somehow convincing people who didn't find the cache that they shouldn't say so? Or that they should say so but in a note rather than a DNF log? How does that help? Specifically, how does that help when the cache actually is missing?

 

I suppose I could adopt the approach that I've seen from others and simply rest in my armchair and claim that the cache is still there.

[+Mudfrog]

 

I'd say in the vast majority of DNFs I've logged, I've had no evidence of a possible issue.

 

Sorry I should have defined "evidence". If I looked and didn't find it, that is evidence that it might be missing. It is worth me logging an DNF. If others also don't find it, that adds more "evidence". I didn't mean evidence to mean finding physical evidence of a problem. If I look and find bits of a broken box and some broken swag, that is stronger evidence of an issue.

 

As far as a DNF log goes, the bolded is the only thing we need to go by. No evidence of any kind is needed to log a DNF. No matter what the reason, if you didn't find the cache, then you didn't find the cache.

 

Of course, if you came up with evidence that there might be a problem, then by all means, feel free to log a NM, maybe even a NA on the cache.

[+justintim1999]

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf.

 

Whether or not you find the cache is largely outside the owner's control, unless they come along to GZ with you. Maybe that's the next step in this evolution

 

In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I've had NM's on my caches when people couldn't find them, only to dutifully go out to GZ to check them out and find the cache in good order precisely where I left it. Ergo I would argue that NM is still only may indicate an issue.

 

As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

Completely agree. There are vocal cachers in my area though who have poisoned the well in this regard by treating NM's as a gross insult.

 

To me each individual cacher's abilities has nothing to do with choosing the correct log to document their experience.

 

I was just helping you to see a clear example of issue that's out of the cache owner's control as reason to post a dnf. That issue is called a DNF and is the most common reason that people post DNF logs, often for reasons outside the cache owner's control.

 

If you've had NM's posted on your caches when DNF's should have been used than you have first hand knowledge of how the miss use of a log can effect a cache owner. Your unnecessary trip to gz is exactly what I'd like to try to avoid.

 

By somehow convincing people who didn't find the cache that they shouldn't say so? Or that they should say so but in a note rather than a DNF log? How does that help? Specifically, how does that help when the cache actually is missing?

 

I suppose I could adopt the approach that I've seen from others and simply rest in my armchair and claim that the cache is still there.

 

I absolutely advocate logging a dnf when gz has been reached and the cache searched for and not found.

 

I think the real question is how dose posting a dnf without ever actually reaching gz help determine that a cache is actually missing?

[+Team Microdot]

I don't see any issue that's out of the cache owners control as reason to post a dnf.

 

Whether or not you find the cache is largely outside the owner's control, unless they come along to GZ with you. Maybe that's the next step in this evolution

 

In my mind a dnf may or may not indicate an issue. A NM tells me there is an issue.

 

I've had NM's on my caches when people couldn't find them, only to dutifully go out to GZ to check them out and find the cache in good order precisely where I left it. Ergo I would argue that NM is still only may indicate an issue.

 

As a cache owner I don't see NM's as an insult in any way. I view them as a fellow cacher helping me to keep my caches viable.

 

Completely agree. There are vocal cachers in my area though who have poisoned the well in this regard by treating NM's as a gross insult.

 

To me each individual cacher's abilities has nothing to do with choosing the correct log to document their experience.

 

I was just helping you to see a clear example of issue that's out of the cache owner's control as reason to post a dnf. That issue is called a DNF and is the most common reason that people post DNF logs, often for reasons outside the cache owner's control.

 

If you've had NM's posted on your caches when DNF's should have been used than you have first hand knowledge of how the miss use of a log can effect a cache owner. Your unnecessary trip to gz is exactly what I'd like to try to avoid.

 

By somehow convincing people who didn't find the cache that they shouldn't say so? Or that they should say so but in a note rather than a DNF log? How does that help? Specifically, how does that help when the cache actually is missing?

 

I suppose I could adopt the approach that I've seen from others and simply rest in my armchair and claim that the cache is still there.

 

I absolutely advocate logging a dnf when gz has been reached and the cache searched for and not found.

 

I think the real question is how dose posting a dnf without ever actually reaching gz help determine that a cache is actually missing?

 

It doesn't.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I'd say in the vast majority of DNFs I've logged, I've had no evidence of a possible issue.

 

Sorry I should have defined "evidence". If I looked and didn't find it, that is evidence that it might be missing. It is worth me logging an DNF. If others also don't find it, that adds more "evidence". I didn't mean evidence to mean finding physical evidence of a problem. If I look and find bits of a broken box and some broken swag, that is stronger evidence of an issue.

 

As far as a DNF log goes, the bolded is the only thing we need to go by. No evidence of any kind is needed to log a DNF. No matter what the reason, if you didn't find the cache, then you didn't find the cache.

 

Of course, if you came up with evidence that there might be a problem, then by all means, feel free to log a NM, maybe even a NA on the cache.

 

Now I'm getting confused. I guess it is that word "evidence" I used. What I meant is I have, through my actions, reasons to think there MAY be an issue. Looking for it is one of those actions, in fact the main one. My looking, and not finding, is "evidence" that their may be a problem (it may be missing). It isn't hard evidence of a problem, I don't assume a problem, but my looking and not finding is a piece of "evidence". If 10 other cachers also fail to find it, that is "evidence". The CO can make a decision when to take action based on the "evidence" put in front of him/her.

 

If the reason I didn't find the cache has absolutely nothing to do with the cache, and doesn't indicate even a possible issue, then I won't log DNF. If I took one step on the trail and decided to stop as it started to rain, yes I "didn't find it", but I personally see no value in logging it as a DNF. And I see negative value to log it as a DNF, as it impacts the cache's health score for no reason.

 

But it gets confusing, as what does "looking" mean... which has been debated. And I don't think we need to define it.

[+Team Microdot]

 

I'd say in the vast majority of DNFs I've logged, I've had no evidence of a possible issue.

 

Sorry I should have defined "evidence". If I looked and didn't find it, that is evidence that it might be missing. It is worth me logging an DNF. If others also don't find it, that adds more "evidence". I didn't mean evidence to mean finding physical evidence of a problem. If I look and find bits of a broken box and some broken swag, that is stronger evidence of an issue.

 

As far as a DNF log goes, the bolded is the only thing we need to go by. No evidence of any kind is needed to log a DNF. No matter what the reason, if you didn't find the cache, then you didn't find the cache.

 

Of course, if you came up with evidence that there might be a problem, then by all means, feel free to log a NM, maybe even a NA on the cache.

 

Now I'm getting confused. I guess it is that word "evidence" I used. What I meant is I have, through my actions, reasons to think there MAY be an issue. Looking for it is one of those actions, in fact the main one. My looking, and not finding, is "evidence" that their may be a problem (it may be missing). It isn't hard evidence of a problem, I don't assume a problem, but my looking and not finding is a piece of "evidence". If 10 other cachers also fail to find it, that is "evidence". The CO can make a decision when to take action based on the "evidence" put in front of him/her.

 

I would go with balance of statistical probability rather than evidence.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I would go with balance of statistical probability rather than evidence.

 

Whatever.

 

My DNF when I reached GZ and looked provides information (which I call evidence) useful to the CO to judge if action may be required.

A DNF because the bridge is out and the cache is difficult or impossible to reach also provides useful information.

 

A DNF because it was raining and I didn't try doesn't provide such useful information.

 

All I'm trying to say (and obviously not very well), is - why log a DNF if the information isn't useful to the CO or others? The only answer to that I can think of is, if it is useful to the person logging the DNF.

[+bflentje]

Since I am one of those dreaded "once I hit go" kind of DNFers and I write DNFs mainly for my own records and personal enjoyment, it seems quite clear that I am misusing the system if I continue.

 

Categorizing my DNFs according to some arbitrary worthiness of search is an effort I am not willing to make. I would rather have a single record of all caches I have attempted, whether or not those attempts pass muster with others.

 

+1

[+thebruce0]

Naturally I think there is value in not having to decipher everyone's interpretations of a dnf which in turn would make determining weather or not a cache is possibly missing easier.

 

And that's why the CHS is a nudge, a tip, an indicator that something might be wrong - not that something is wrong - and ultimately (apart from the wording) it has absolutely zero negative effect on the status of a cache, zero push towards being addressed incorrectly by a reviewer. The system knows that DNFs are vague. A "nag" email isn't even a "negative" (even though that coined term for it has negative connotations). Ignore it. Delete it. As a CO, judge DNFs for yourself (no CO should outright ignore DNFs entirely, and some people may not post NM if there's strong evidence of a problem, or whatever), and tend to issues if they arrive. That's it...

 

Much of the discussion has been about the health score and the tool/emails. I think it is safe to assume the tool is not trying to understand the text inside the DNF log. So the tool sees each DNF as a "possible issue". Which is why many of the posts suggest at least considering the existence of the tool and the emails when choosing the log type "DNF".

 

And the thing is, DNF has always included in its meaning a "possible issue". It may or may not indicate a problem. A CO can read it or ignore it. Ignoring it means that a potential issue undealt with will soon become a concern for reviewer attention. This CHS is just the same thing, to identify "possible issues", but slightly more pre-emptive for those people who do tend to ignore potential issues, whether by DNF or other algorithmic factors they've included. The email may or may not indicate a problem. A CO can read it or ignore it. Ignoring it means that a potential issue undealt with will soon become a concern for reviewer attention.

 

CHS emails are nothing new. But the wording could be clearer about their intent and possible resolutions. Yet even if not, it matters not. Ignore it and delete it if it's not raising a concern, just like you would a DNF notification.

 

 

Here's the thing - everything that happens to your cache as a CO should be paid attention to. Find logs, perhaps not as much - that's a confirmation (most generally) that's it's still in good condition. But anything - note, dnf, nm, na, nag - since all may contain relevant information for the CO to decide a next step (or none at all), they should be watched for. Should. There are always exceptions. But a good, attentive CO, will always be watching for potentail problems (recognizing that ideally real problems will be raised via NM - but not always). With that mindset, and the realization that one. more. email. is negligible, a CHS "nag" should be just as helpful to the CO - whether a correct identification of a problem or not.

 

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be! Only real unattended problems will come to reviewer attention, if they remain unattended, and nothing automated will do anything negative to your listing. I find it hard to believe that such a rare instance such as: "Someone's single irrelevant DNF caused a nag email on my good-standing cache which prompted a reviewer to require that I trvael to my remote forest cache within the week to verify that it's in good condition" will ever actually happen. I just sense so much alarmism with this CHS and DNF stuff right now.

 

*sigh*

[+niraD]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

Are those three alternatives offered as absolute requirements or examples of potential responses options?

[+justintim1999]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

I agree the forth option of "read it and leave it" would be helpful for the experienced, responsible cache owner. I can also understand why GS doesn't include something like this in the e-mail. If you did offer "do nothing" as an option many cache owners would do just that.

Edited July 12, 2017 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

I agree the forth option of "read it and leave it" would be helpful for the experienced, responsible cache owner. I can also understand why GS doesn't include something like this in the e-mail. If you did offer "do nothing" as an option many cache owners would do just that.

 

Ding ding! We have a winner.

[+narcissa]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

This is my concern with it. I don't think that most of my fellow geocachers would assume, given the tone of the email, that it can be safely ignored. And I really don't trust that it actually can be ignored without consequences.

[+dprovan]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

Those supporting the nag e-mails assume nagging has zero cost, so there's they don't worry about whether nagging is worth it. I'm more inclined the make the same mistake but in the opposite direction: I doubt nagging has any actual benefit, so insulting anyone with a nag is uncalled for even when the cache does, in fact, have a problem.

[+dprovan]

I've always thought dnf were a little ambiguous. So many factors go into how and why people use them. I've always believed their primary function was to help identify caches that may have gone missing and to alert cache owners of a potential problem.

This entire thread is about how wrong this belief is. The primary function of all logs, including DNFs, is to communicate with other humans. The log type gives the other humans a heads up about what the topic is, but the primary function of the log is in the text it carries.

 

The only ambiguity comes when you imagine that this log type has a concrete meaning all on its own. That's not how it's used, nor is it how it should be used. This thread is a protest against encouraging people that the imaginary concrete meaning is real.

[+justintim1999]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

Those supporting the nag e-mails assume nagging has zero cost, so there's they don't worry about whether nagging is worth it. I'm more inclined the make the same mistake but in the opposite direction: I doubt nagging has any actual benefit, so insulting anyone with a nag is uncalled for even when the cache does, in fact, have a problem.

 

I get that. I just can't get myself to nagging and insulting. If I were receiving one of those a couple of times a week I'm sure I'd get annoyed pretty quickly. Fortunately I've never received one and I don't expect to any time soon.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

The lack of an option to ignore the email if it was generated in error reinforces the insulting tone, as was discussed above. The implication is that you, the recipient of the email, are so lazy and irresponsible that you will grab at any chance to not maintain your cache. Any hint that the email may have been generated in error will cause you to ignore it, so it Must Not Even Be Mentioned.

 

Gack.

Edited July 12, 2017 by fizzymagic

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

The lack of an option to ignore the email if it was generated in error reinforces the insulting tone, as was discussed above. The implication is that you, the recipient of the email, are so lazy and irresponsible that you will grab at any chance to not maintain your cache. Any hint that the email may have been generated in error will cause you to ignore it, so it Must Not Even Be Mentioned.

 

Gack.

 

I don't see that option excluded or forbidden anywhere.

 

I do see people determined to feel or claim to feel insulted just for the hell of it though.

[+thebruce0]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

I agree the forth option of "read it and leave it" would be helpful for the experienced, responsible cache owner. I can also understand why GS doesn't include something like this in the e-mail. If you did offer "do nothing" as an option many cache owners would do just that.

 

Ding ding! We have a winner.

 

Yep exactly. That's why I say, as long as the wording doesn't include that option (I would love to see the wording address it, but also understand the concern with including it), I'll just gently inform people that the emails are docile. If there is a problem with the cache, deal with it, otherwise, yes, it is safe to ignore it. Simple as that.

 

"There's nothing about the tone of the email that should perturb a rational adult."

This.

 

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

Those supporting the nag e-mails assume nagging has zero cost, so there's they don't worry about whether nagging is worth it. I'm more inclined the make the same mistake but in the opposite direction: I doubt nagging has any actual benefit, so insulting anyone with a nag is uncalled for even when the cache does, in fact, have a problem.

 

I would agree, except that the email really is innocuous. An email you can click 'delete' with zero direct, immediate repurcussions is nothing like responding to someone in your face repeatedly informing you of something you have no desire to be informed of.

 

The implication is that you, the recipient of the email, are so lazy and irresponsible that you will grab at any chance to not maintain your cache.

I don't get that implication at all. At least, with the knowledge that it can be ignored, and it's just an email, sent to you, no one else, not broadcast to the world to insinuate at all that you are a lazy and irresponsible cache owner. And, while a reviewer can see the CHS, I defy anyone to find a reviewer who, first and foremost, sees a low cache health score and assumes off the bat that every CO with one is a lazy and irresponsible owner. I'm absolutely confident that every reviewer would see and treat the CHS as an indicator of cache-specific potential issue that an owner may or may not be aware of, and thus would rationally make the decision whether or not to contact said owner or take action with the listing.

 

So again, as long as the wording implies that something must be done, I'll continue to inform people that nope, you can ignore it, and if there is an issue, wait for it to come to your attention organically as it always has before. But if you ignore it and a reviewer does something first because they've judged that a slew of DNFs (which you should also have been receiving copies of) implies there's a problem which you've apparently been ignoring, well, that's because a human has judged there to be a potential issue you've been ignoring, and so you can deal with the human, who, assuming they are rational, will have no problem agreeing and moving along if there isn't a problem. No harm no foul.

 

"I do see people determined to feel or claim to feel insulted just for the hell of it though."

Again, this.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

The lack of an option to ignore the email if it was generated in error reinforces the insulting tone, as was discussed above. The implication is that you, the recipient of the email, are so lazy and irresponsible that you will grab at any chance to not maintain your cache. Any hint that the email may have been generated in error will cause you to ignore it, so it Must Not Even Be Mentioned.

 

Gack.

 

I don't see that option excluded or forbidden anywhere.

 

Then either (a) you haven't read the email, or ( b ) you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

The email, coming from an authority that can forcibly archive your cache, implicitly includes an exhaustive list of possible responses. The option to ignore the false positive is excluded from that list.

 

Thus, the option is indeed excluded somewhere.

 

QED.

Edited July 12, 2017 by fizzymagic

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares?

Most people don't like to be nagged, whether as a CO or in real life. Nags carry the implicit insult that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions and the explicit insult that any decision you have already made is wrong.

 

The lack of an option to ignore the email if it was generated in error reinforces the insulting tone, as was discussed above. The implication is that you, the recipient of the email, are so lazy and irresponsible that you will grab at any chance to not maintain your cache. Any hint that the email may have been generated in error will cause you to ignore it, so it Must Not Even Be Mentioned.

 

Gack.

 

I don't see that option excluded or forbidden anywhere.

 

Then either (a) you haven't read the email, or ( b ) you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

The email, coming from an authority that can forcibly archive your cache, implicitly includes an exhaustive list of possible responses. The option to ignore the false positive is excluded from that list.

 

Thus, the option is indeed excluded somewhere.

 

QED.

 

Or (f) I have read the email and (g) my reading comprehension is perfectly adequate for my needs - or a host of other possibilities.

 

I am guilty of enjoying your rambunctious posting style in the past but confess that the enjoyment is limited to those times when I've agreed with the point you were making.

 

You took part in this thread which had a lovely example of the email in question - so I have read it, so I think we can dismiss point (a).

 

I can't really comment on where I rank in the reading comprehension hall of fame and I'll admit to having struggled many times over the years, particularly with technical documents, but I sometimes put that down the author being focused more on sounding clever than on sharing useful information in a user-friendly digestible format.

 

When I read the words Here are a few options for what to do now in the email which some people claim to find upsetting I understand those to be suggestions, possibilities and, as I said earlier - other options are not excluded or forbidden anywhere. The list isn't exhaustive. We have other options.

 

I've always imagined geocachers to be relatively rugged outdoors types. Those that find an email like the cited example to be upsetting or insulting might be better suited to gentler alternative pastimes.

[+Mudfrog]

 

I would go with balance of statistical probability rather than evidence.

 

Whatever.

 

My DNF when I reached GZ and looked provides information (which I call evidence) useful to the CO to judge if action may be required.

A DNF because the bridge is out and the cache is difficult or impossible to reach also provides useful information.

 

A DNF because it was raining and I didn't try doesn't provide such useful information.

 

All I'm trying to say (and obviously not very well), is - why log a DNF if the information isn't useful to the CO or others? The only answer to that I can think of is, if it is useful to the person logging the DNF.

 

Your explanation is fine. You believe that DNF has to convey more than just did not find. I see it as a simple statement of fact, that the cache wasn't found. Nothing more, nothing less. Having said that, i agree that adding pertinent information to a DNF log is a good thing to do. Myself, i always include info in my logs. But it isn't mandatory when a person wants to simply record that they didn't find a cache. Sure, a log like this may not be much help to others but it can be helpful to the person posting it.

[+barefootjeff]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

Are those three alternatives offered as absolute requirements or examples of potential responses options?

No, they're not absolute requirements, but the implication is that one of those options is what HQ would like you to do, or thinks you should do. This is reinforced by the related Help Centre page that threatens escalation to a reviewer if the cache health score doesn't improve.

 

The guidelines clearly state that cache maintenance is the CO's responsibility, and for those that take that responsibility seriously and conscientiously, the email does come across as a reprimand even if that's not the intent.

[+qtbluemoon]

"Your geocache looks like it might need some attention." Seriously? Reprimand? Hardly. To me, that says, "We know you're busy, got a lot going on, maybe you've overlooked this. Why don't you take a look at the cache and see if it's doing okay." I guess if I got 10 of these in a day or so, it would bug me, but this seems more of a little reminder than a reprimand.

 

"Your geocache is tanking, you better get out there and take care of things, or it's toast!" Now that's a reprimand!

Edited July 12, 2017 by qtbluemoon

[+fizzymagic]

When I read the words Here are a few options for what to do now in the email which some people claim to find upsetting I understand those to be suggestions, possibilities and, as I said earlier - other options are not excluded or forbidden anywhere. The list isn't exhaustive. We have other options.

 

The email comes with the implied threat of archiving your cache. In my opinion, choosing one of the included options is presented as a requirement in order to forestall the archiving action.

 

But we can agree to disagree on that. I think that the email is unprofessional and insulting; you do not.

[+thebruce0]

For completion's sake, the email, again:

Your geocache, {removed}, looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an "Owner Maintenance" log so the community knows it's available to find.

 

Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing.

Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

Nowhere is there a "threat" implied or otherwise of your cache being archived, at least by anyone but yourself.

So no, there is no reprimand.

"...looks like it might..."

"...may contain..."

"...could be..."

"...a few options..."

"...if...if...if..."

 

Nope, still don't see any reason to feel insulted with this notification email.

Edited July 13, 2017 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

For completion's sake, the email, again:

Your geocache, {removed}, looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an "Owner Maintenance" log so the community knows it's available to find.

 

Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing.

Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

Nowhere is there a "threat" implied or otherwise of your cache being archived, at least by anyone but yourself.

So no, there is no reprimand.

"...looks like it might..."

"...may contain..."

"...could be..."

"...a few options..."

"...if...if...if..."

 

Nope, still don't see any reason to feel insulted with this notification email.

 

Can you highlight the portion that says it's totally okay to ignore the email? I am having trouble spotting that passage.

[+thebruce0]

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

Edited July 13, 2017 by thebruce0