Demonising the DNF

[+on4bam]

Exactly.

Besides, I have better things to do than go post NM/NA logs on caches I may or may not go for. If I think a cache I might want to go for "might" have a problem I wouldn't think twice about just leaving it be or wait until the logs show there's no problem (anymore).

Just looking at some threads here people leave throwdowns after DNFing a cache which later seems to be still there. Just by reading logs like that I don't think posting  armchair NM/NA is the way to go. At the very least a visit to GZ is a must.

 

[+L0ne.R]

38 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Exactly.

Besides, I have better things to do than go post NM/NA logs on caches I may or may not go for. If I think a cache I might want to go for "might" have a problem I wouldn't think twice about just leaving it be or wait until the logs show there's no problem (anymore).

Just looking at some threads here people leave throwdowns after DNFing a cache which later seems to be still there. Just by reading logs like that I don't think posting  armchair NM/NA is the way to go. At the very least a visit to GZ is a must.

 

It's about playing a responsible game with integrity. Participating, giving tacit approval, and ignoring litter caching is not responsible stewardship.

A reminder of what owners agree to when submitting their caches:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Cache owner responsibilities

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must

• Monitor logs for reported problems.
• Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance.
• Update the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.
• Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.
• Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.
• Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.
• Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
• Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
• Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

[+on4bam]

33 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's about playing a responsible game with integrity. Participating, giving tacit approval, and ignoring litter caching is not responsible stewardship.

A reminder of what owners agree to when submitting their caches:

 

Which is all irrelevant. Not visiting GZ means you can't be 100% sure about the situation so logging NM/NA is not an option.

 

[+cerberus1]

51 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Besides, I have better things to do than go post NM/NA logs on caches I may or may not go for. If I think a cache I might want to go for "might" have a problem I wouldn't think twice about just leaving it be or wait until the logs show there's no problem (anymore).

Just looking at some threads here people leave throwdowns after DNFing a cache which later seems to be still there. Just by reading logs like that I don't think posting  armchair NM/NA is the way to go. At the very least a visit to GZ is a must.

I agree.   The guidelines do allow some common sense too. 

A couple here got carried away once, pushing their agenda/opinions on others, writing remote logs, turning cache pages into forums ... then we found out they were trying to push another game/hobby into the area.   All that time we thought they were just wet blankets...

Some may feel they're adding "integrity" back to the game by pushing themselves on others, but we've seen many instances in these forums where close communities have held up caches deemed special to them, and acknowledged by the Reviewer. 

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

Which is all irrelevant. Not visiting GZ means you can't be 100% sure about the situation so logging NM/NA is not an option.

 

So anyone who has ever logged an NM / NA on a cache without being 100% sure of the situation was wrong? Out of order? Bad? Intentionally malevolent?

Spreading this kind of misinformation sounds hideously counter-productive.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, on4bam said:

Which is all irrelevant. Not visiting GZ means you can't be 100% sure about the situation so logging NM/NA is not an option.

 

What is irrelevant? Good stewardship? Responsible cache ownership? Working with the guidelines?

Ultimately, only the cache owner can be 100% sure by visiting the location.

[+on4bam]

43 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What is irrelevant? Good stewardship? Responsible cache ownership? Working with the guidelines?

Ultimately, only the cache owner can be 100% sure by visiting the location.

Quoting the guidelines for CO's is irrelevant. It's not about a CO looking after his/her caches, it's about someone taking it up to themselves to post NM/NA without even looking for the cache only by looking at logs that may or may not be accurate.

You're right only the CO can be sure but it's not up to some armchair NM/NA logger to make the CO go out to check a cache on a hunch.

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

It seems as if the local standard is:  Four DNFs = Disabled.

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

To intentionally NM/NA caches I've never visited first  would probably keep us from being able to attend events anymore.

If you're so often wrong or you're so unpleasant that people will take it out on you whenever you attend events, then I agree: maybe you shouldn't post NMs or NAs.

6 hours ago, on4bam said:

Besides, I have better things to do than go post NM/NA logs on caches I may or may not go for.

Well, at least you're honest about it. I think "I have better things to do" is often the real reason people don't post NMs or NAs.

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Not visiting GZ means you can't be 100% sure about the situation so logging NM/NA is not an option.

You can never be 100% sure about the situation whether you visit GZ or not. And why is being sure a big deal, anyway? Are you telling me you can't tell someone about what you see and why you think it implies a problem unless you're 100% sure? If 100% sure is your standard, how do you ever tell anyone anything?

And this point gets laughable when we stop to consider that you're using "I can't be 100% sure" to justify leaving it up to the healthcare approach which will always be wrong from time to time. I'm sure that you, from looking at the logs, can do much better than the health score robot counting up DNFs even if you don't manage 100% accuracy.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

There may be some reviewers that see nothing wrong with someone filing an armchair NM or NA. If i were a reviewer, and knew the email came from a person that hadn't even been close to the cache site, i'd have a canned response email ready to cover it. Something like,

"Greetings from the Reviewer covering the cache you assume has a problem. Please present some evidence, usually obtained when actually visiting a cache site, to support your assumption that there is a problem with this cache. I'll be happy to look into the matter when such evidence is brought forth. Thank you for your understanding."

I'd be perfectly happy with a reviewer objecting to an NA which provides insufficient supporting evidence. But I see no reason why visiting GZ would need to be the one specific kind of evidence required for every NA. Except in rare cases, an NA requires a preponderance of evidence from the log, and once you have that much evidence, a visit to GZ won't tell you anything new.

If the reviewer is going to trust my NA because I said I visited GZ, by what logic can he justify not trusting all the other logs I'm citing as evidence to support my claim that there's no point in going to GZ?

[+Team DEMP]

Here are real examples, not hypothetical made up situations, where caches were not being maintained and though I hadn't visited the cache, a solid assessment can be made. By logging a NM or NA on an obviously unmaintained cache, it was handled appropriately and removed from the game. Like the automated cache health score where the computer didn't visit the cache, an assessment can be made except the content and context of the previous logs can aide a human in that assessment. In all but 1 case, the reviewer temp disabled the cache and it was archived after another month of not being maintained.  These occurred across multiple states with multiple reviewers involved. In all cases I have or was headed to the areas where these caches were placed and scouting the caches I was going to consider hunting. I think all the below occurred in 2017. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1BD6D_tribute-to-jb
1.5/1 Cache w/ 7 DNFs and 2 NMs over 14 months. Submitted NA and it was archived shortly after. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3E89Y_its-still-rockwell-n-roll-to-me
1.5/1.5 cache w/ DNF & NM where a fallen tree has destroyed the hiding location. CO hasn't been active in a few months and moved out of the area. Cache was quickly archived. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3XJ32_its-5-oclock-somewhere
1.5/1.5 cache w/ 6 DNFs in 9 months. NM logged and a couple months later a NA logged. Reviewer temp disabled and no response followed by the archive. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4AAD7_nike-just-do-it
2/2 cache that previously, with the permission of the original CO, I replaced as I was heading up to the location the following weekend. This was after a while without the cache being maintained. When it went missing, I didn't visit the cache location to confirm, though I'm sure from the picture posted it's gone, I NA'ed the cache with the CO having 1+ month time to replace, again, before the reviewer archived it.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AH0Y_hrg-1-the-beginning-of-a-series
1.5/1.5 cache with multiple DNFs and a NM over a few months. Filed a NA and it was archived 1 month later. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AM8T_snows-cut-search
1.5/2.5 cache with multiple reports of it missing (though apparently it's ok for multiple cachers to log a find on a missing cache?). I posted a NM and even volunteered to possibly replace it when I visit if the owner wanted, but they temp disabled and then it was archived by a reviewer a couple months later.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC30XDH_sleepwalkers-series-the-alley
1.5/1 cache with DNFs for over a year. Logged a NM and then it was temp disabled and archived by a reviewer within a couple more months. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2CD14_doig-micro
1/1 cache with 10 DNFs over a year. Logged a NM and the reviewer then temp disabled and archived within a couple months. 

 

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you're so often wrong or you're so unpleasant that people will take it out on you whenever you attend events, then I agree: maybe you shouldn't post NMs or NAs.

Not sure if you feel you're being clever, or just rude, but as explained earlier I don't place remote actions. 

[+coachstahly]

If we're not OK with armchair logs for Found it logs, should we not be OK with armchair NM/NA logs as well?  Personally, I won't file a NM/NA log without actually visiting GZ, unless it's a private property issue and I can't get to GZ because of a posted sign (happened a few times).  That does NOT mean I think TeamDEMP is wrong.  It's just not how I would choose to play.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Not sure if you feel you're being clever, or just rude, but as explained earlier I don't place remote actions. 

I thought I was responding to your comment. Perhaps I misunderstood it. When you said

18 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

To intentionally NM/NA caches I've never visited first  would probably keep us from being able to attend events anymore.

didn't you mean you wouldn't be able to attend events because people would react negatively to your NMs and NAs? If so, why would they react negatively if your NMs and NAs are polite and accurate even if you never went to GZ?

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

If we're not OK with armchair logs for Found it logs, should we not be OK with armchair NM/NA logs as well?  Personally, I won't file a NM/NA log without actually visiting GZ, unless it's a private property issue and I can't get to GZ because of a posted sign (happened a few times).  That does NOT mean I think TeamDEMP is wrong.  It's just not how I would choose to play.

I don't mind if you don't file NMs or NAs, but the reason I post NMs and NAs without visiting GZ is because the situation is so clear from the logs it makes no sense to go to GZ. In particular, I almost always post NAs based on the fact that there's a legitimate NM that hasn't been fixed. If I don't post that NA, who will? No one else paying attention will go to GZ, either. And why should I? Why should I think my evaluation of GZ will be so much better than the evaluation made by the person that posted the NM?

[+Team Microdot]

8 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AM8T_snows-cut-search
1.5/2.5 cache with multiple reports of it missing (though apparently it's ok for multiple cachers to log a find on a missing cache?). I posted a NM and even volunteered to possibly replace it when I visit if the owner wanted, but they temp disabled and then it was archived by a reviewer a couple months later.

Had you previously found that cache?

[anpefi]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

If we're not OK with armchair logs for Found it logs, should we not be OK with armchair NM/NA logs as well?

They can not be compared. A Found it log requires that you have physically signed a logbook, which obviously can not be done from your armchair. But a NM / NA is nothing more than the mechanism of letting the owner and/or the reviewers know that there is some kind of problem with the cache, and it does not necessarily have to be with the physical container. I consider it totally legitimate to, in a cache that I have not visited yet, put a NM log if I see that there are many DNFs that indicate that the place is obvious but there is nothing, and the owner did not react. I put a NM for the owner to react. If the owner had already replaced the cache but did not log the OM, then it was still incorrect, and the NM is not left over. If the owner does not respond to the NM in a couple of months, then an NA is put in for the reviewers to find out that I believe there is a problem in maintaining that cache and that they are judging. An NA is not a judgment, judging is handled by the reviewers not by the NA postman.

[+on4bam]

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

Because that will help how?

[anpefi]

6 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

And force to log a DNF when it is not needed?

 

For example, a couple of weeks before I logged a NM in a Wherigo because in the listing there was a link to the most recent version of the cartridge (a generic multi-Wherigo one) and that version don't work for that Wherigo. In the listing there is not any other indication on how download a previous version (you cannot) or that you can use another different cartridge. The only way to solve the Wherigo is that you contact the owner and he tells u what cardtrige you can use instead of the listed. I log the NM, because the listing has to be cjhanged to allow all the user what they need without contact the owner. Can you tell me that I wrongly logged a NM? Should I log and additional DNF even if I cannot have the final coordinates? 

[+Team DEMP]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Had you previously found that cache?

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AM8T_snows-cut-search was not previously found by me.

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Had you previously found that cache?

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AM8T_snows-cut-search was not previously found by me.

Once you'd replaced it, would you be claiming a find?

[+Mudfrog]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I thought I was responding to your comment. Perhaps I misunderstood it. When you said

didn't you mean you wouldn't be able to attend events because people would react negatively to your NMs and NAs? If so, why would they react negatively if your NMs and NAs are polite and accurate even if you never went to GZ?

I've had an armchair NA come in and yes, i did react negatively. The person that logged it read the one DNF log and the date the cache was last found then assumed the cache was in trouble. It wasn't the end of the world mind you but i did have to get busy to keep the reviewer disablement off the cache. To put it bluntly, at that point, it was none of that busybody's business.

 

[+Team DEMP]

I'm also surprised at the number of DNF logs that are logged as Finds in the caches I have NM'ed/NA'ed. I can tell they are DNFs based on the actual log contents where they say they didn't find it, but they end up logging it as a find. I'd expect the incorrect log types are done by mistake and not on purpose, but it further highlights the CO not maintaining their cache. I've received logs on owned caches where this same mistake was done and in every case I reached out to the cacher and they corrected their logs. I know I'd want someone to reach out to correct a mistake if I was the one logging. Another reason to remove this unsupported caches. 

[rui_curado]

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

I agree. At least, the process of determining if a container is really missing must be made more resilient or fool-proof.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, rui_curado said:

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

I agree. At least, the process of determining if a container is really missing must be made more resilient or fool-proof.

I'd be fascinated to hear exactly how you plan to achieve that when the CO is absent.

Really - I'm all ears...

[+Team DEMP]

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

 

Makes no sense to implement such a rule. I've logged NM/NAs on caches I've not visited, on caches I DNFed and on caches I found without a DNF. 

Not that I'd ever expect this rule to be implemented, but if it was, I'd just log a DNF and then a |NM or NA as appropriate.

Instead of all the hypothetical situations, review the real ones I posted. Let me know how any of them aren't appropriate and didn't make things better. At least we'd be talking about something real and not conjecture from the forums. 

[+Mudfrog]

4 hours ago, anpefi said:

And force to log a DNF when it is not needed?

 

For example, a couple of weeks before I logged a NM in a Wherigo because in the listing there was a link to the most recent version of the cartridge (a generic multi-Wherigo one) and that version don't work for that Wherigo. In the listing there is not any other indication on how download a previous version (you cannot) or that you can use another different cartridge. The only way to solve the Wherigo is that you contact the owner and he tells u what cardtrige you can use instead of the listed. I log the NM, because the listing has to be cjhanged to allow all the user what they need without contact the owner. Can you tell me that I wrongly logged a NM? Should I log and additional DNF even if I cannot have the final coordinates? 

This would be a legitimate time to log a NM. There are other times when an armchair NM is appropriate. Go for it if you discover a link in the cache description is broken, if a needed image doesn't display on the page, or if the coordinates show the cache in your back yard. But please don't look at the logs by themselves and assume they are stating all the facts. A person needs to at least make an attempt at finding the cache to get their own feeling for why they think there may be an issue with it.

[rui_curado]

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd be fascinated to hear exactly how you plan to achieve that when the CO is absent.

Really - I'm all ears...

I understand you. After all there is only one person who can really be sure where the container is. But what about nominating a team of (recognized) volunteers for going on "search missions"? Like someone said before, if a group of 20 geocachers couldn't find it... In this case, if 4 or 5 "official verifiers" couldn't find it, the container would be "certified missing". This had to be sanctioned by GCHQ of course.

[+Team DEMP]

3 minutes ago, rui_curado said:

I understand you. After all there is only one person who can really be sure where the container is. But what about nominating a team of (recognized) volunteers for going on "search missions"? Like someone said before, if a group of 20 geocachers couldn't find it... In this case, if 4 or 5 "official verifiers" couldn't find it, the container would be "certified missing". This had to be sanctioned by GCHQ of course.

You are creating a solution to a problem that already was solved. The cache owner is responsible for the cache... no one disputes that. The cache owner has neglected their cache and not provided any follow-up or interaction over months and then is given an additional month or two to respond. After that is done, the cache is disabled. Why do we need to have some formal expedition when the process works as long as people look beyond their one log?  We don't need more rules, we need more people just doing what should occur already. 

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, rui_curado said:

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd be fascinated to hear exactly how you plan to achieve that when the CO is absent.

Really - I'm all ears...

I understand you. After all there is only one person who can really be sure where the container is. But what about nominating a team of (recognized) volunteers for going on "search missions"? Like someone said before, if a group of 20 geocachers couldn't find it... In this case, if 4 or 5 "official verifiers" couldn't find it, the container would be "certified missing". This had to be sanctioned by GCHQ of course.

Oh golly - yes - sign me up!

I'd love to spend all my caching time making special trips out to not find caches - that sounds like lots of fun

[rui_curado]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Oh golly - yes - sign me up!

I'd love to spend all my caching time making special trips out to not find caches - that sounds like lots of fun

Ahem.... "volunteers"... 

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, rui_curado said:

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Oh golly - yes - sign me up!

I'd love to spend all my caching time making special trips out to not find caches - that sounds like lots of fun

Ahem.... "volunteers"... 

Ahem - nobody ever.

[+Team DEMP]

30 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I've had an armchair NA come in and yes, i did react negatively. The person that logged it read the one DNF log and the date the cache was last found then assumed the cache was in trouble. It wasn't the end of the world mind you but i did have to get busy to keep the reviewer disablement off the cache. To put it bluntly, at that point, it was none of that busybody's business.

 

If you check out my post with real examples, you'll see with very few exceptions, the NM/NAs are posted for caches with COs no longer active. I don't think these inactive COs are showing up at any events, and if they did, they should have no beef against me.  All the caches I NM/NAed have a history of issues that have gone unresolved for months and these are not .

Don't take 1 example and determine the process is failed because of it no more than 1 example of a cacher logging a DNF as a Find indicates some failure we need to change the rules to support. 

Imagine if everyone in this thread spent 15 minutes today looking at the map in their area for a cache they haven't found but from their logs shows it's abandoned and in disrepair or likely missing. You should all be smarter then the cache health score and could assess the situation more adequately vs a bunch of IF/THEN/ELSE statements. Find that cache instead of arguing in the forum, post a NM or NA as appropriate, and in 2 months the cache should be gone. Do that once a week and I would suspect a year from now, there'd be less garbage on the map.  Sitting back and doing nothing won't make a difference, but if that's your choice, that's fine, but don't condemn those taking an action. 

[+Team DEMP]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Ahem - nobody ever.

If they created a new log type and icon I'd bet you get Cache Unverified Notification Tracker   volunteers to go out and verify those NA/NM notifications. 

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Ahem - nobody ever.

If they created a new log type and icon I'd bet you get Cache Unverified Notification Tracker   volunteers to go out and verify those NA/NM notifications. 

Probably the same sorts of people who would replace the cache and claim a smiley while they were there

[+on4bam]

21 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

Imagine if everyone in this thread spent 15 minutes today looking at the map in their area for a cache they haven't found but from their logs shows it's abandoned and in disrepair or likely missing. You should all be smarter then the cache health score and could assess the situation more adequately vs a bunch of IF/THEN/ELSE statements. Find that cache instead of arguing in the forum, post a NM or NA as appropriate, and in 2 months the cache should be gone. Do that once a week and I would suspect a year from now, there'd be less garbage on the map.  Sitting back and doing nothing won't make a difference, but if that's your choice, that's fine, but don't condemn those taking an action. 

No reason to do that, I'll post NM/NA if I come across "live" problems but I won't spend time looking at "possible" problems, I'll leave that to the people who actually go find those caches.

 

[+Team DEMP]

2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

No reason to do that, I'll post NM/NA if I come across "live" problems but I won't spend time looking at "possible" problems, I'll leave that to the people who actually go find those caches.

 

If you again take a moment to not respond in the forum but read the actual cases I referenced in my earlier post, you'll see 4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months where the "people" you are referring to are not logging a NM/NA. Your non-action isn't doing anything to clean up the missing or severely unmaintained caches. That's fine - just don't complain about them or those that don't want to sit by. 

[+L0ne.R]

51 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Probably the same sorts of people who would replace the cache and claim a smiley while they were there

Yep.

[+CAVinoGal]

55 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

Imagine if everyone in this thread spent 15 minutes today looking at the map in their area for a cache they haven't found but from their logs shows it's abandoned and in disrepair or likely missing. You should all be smarter then the cache health score and could assess the situation more adequately ... find that cache ... post a NM or NA as appropriate, and in 2 months the cache should be gone. Do that once a week and I would suspect a year from now, there'd be less garbage on the map.  Sitting back and doing nothing won't make a difference, but if that's your choice, that's fine, but don't condemn those taking an action. 

First, I am not condemning you for your actions, not at all.  In fact, I can see my geocaching "style" is evolving and becoming much more proactive in hopes of bettering the experience for myself and for others.

When I first began, I wasn't logging any DNF's, or NM, or NA - just logging my finds.  Now, I wish I had logged those, as a record for myself to jog my memory (was it inexperience - have others found it since and I need to revisit?) or as a note to the CO to check on it, especially in cases where there was clear evidence things were amiss.  As I gain a bit more experience and confidence in my ability to both find caches and recognize issues, I am logging my DNF's, and NM's as well.  I've reversed a few of my DNF's, and have had a couple turned into archived caches.  I am more likely to try and find those with a few DNF's, either to find it and feel a bit of satisfaction, and make a note that it IS there in spite of the DNF's, or to verify and log the NM that no one else has.

While I don't actively scour the map for caches needing attention, I am getting a bit more agressive in my logging of NM's that I come across in my usual caching activity.  If each of us even did THAT much, it would make a difference, I think.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

No reason to do that, I'll post NM/NA if I come across "live" problems but I won't spend time looking at "possible" problems, I'll leave that to the people who actually go find those caches.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this or how I can make it clearer, but NAs are most often needed on caches that it's pointless to go look for. So even though it's true that eventually someone will look for that cache by mistake, there's no reason for me to delay posting the NA and getting the cache archived without waiting however long it takes for that to happen. And, as a bonus, I can get it cleared off the map before that someone wastes their time looking for it.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I've had an armchair NA come in and yes, i did react negatively. The person that logged it read the one DNF log and the date the cache was last found then assumed the cache was in trouble. It wasn't the end of the world mind you but i did have to get busy to keep the reviewer disablement off the cache. To put it bluntly, at that point, it was none of that busybody's business.

If you reacted to the NA itself negatively, I wish you'd reconsider. I have no problem with you being upset with someone posting an NA with insufficient cause or while presenting insufficient evidence. But rather than go off on the idea that they should dare post any NA, how about trying to help them understand when an NA is actually needed? I'm sure you would never let any of your easy caches go with several DNFs followed by an NM by someone that makes a clear case for why they think the cache is missing, but can you at least be able to imagine that if I see that in a log, it's perfectly valid for me to conclude that the CO has failed his cache and it needs to be archived unless my armchair NA spurs him into last minute action?

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

So you can put the rest of us in our place without having to actually counter our arguments about why armchair NMs and NAs can be perfectly reasonable and are sometimes required?

And, again, justified by the alternative process where reviewers or even robots archive caches without even thinking of them as real caches, specifically having no reason whatsoever to file either a find or a DNF on them. Why do you find it OK for them to do that mindlessly, but not OK for someone that has enough interest in the cache to read the logs and think about it?

2 hours ago, rui_curado said:

I agree. At least, the process of determining if a container is really missing must be made more resilient or fool-proof.

Sorry, I see no reason to be afraid of mistakes. An honest mistake should be no problem at all, and an incompetent mistake like the case Mudfrog just presented should be considered an educational opportunity.

[Nicc from KS]

So, if a handful of newbs can't find a cache that is actually there, it gets hit with 4 or  DNFs. Some armchair NM/NA cacher sees this and posts a NA without actually looking for the cache. And this seems justifiable because of the DNFs? I only have one account. But, I suppose for fun, I could create a handful of puppet accounts. Tag a bunch of caches with DNFs. Follow up with NMs and NAs and wait for the reviewer to archive caches which are actually still in play and good quality. Some COs will spend the time checking on these and tagging the OM. But many COs will get tire of the harassing games and just archive their caches and quit caching all together.

[+dprovan]

2 minutes ago, Nicc from KS said:

So, if a handful of newbs can't find a cache that is actually there, it gets hit with 4 or  DNFs. Some armchair NM/NA cacher sees this and posts a NA without actually looking for the cache. And this seems justifiable because of the DNFs?

Who said that? I'm totally against incompetent uses of NAs. Just before your post, I posted an example where I think the armchair NA is clearly called for based on what's in the log (several DNFs followed by a well presented NM). Wouldn't my hypothetical NA seem justified to you?

The thing to consider is that that same person can just as easily go to GZ and still post an incompetent NA. The NA isn't the problem, it's the failure to correctly assess the situation. That can happen at GZ just as easily as it can happen at home in the armchair. Think about it: is your story any happier if that NM/NA cacher goes to GZ, looks for the cache, and still files the NM or NA even though it turns out he just wasn't any better of a searcher than those newbies?

7 minutes ago, Nicc from KS said:

Some COs will spend the time checking on these and tagging the OM. But many COs will get tire of the harassing games and just archive their caches and quit caching all together.

First of all, I'd have to see this actually happening before I'd concede it's a problem. Judging from all the complaints about bad caches, I'd conclude that COs aren't getting harassed enough. But me, I don't believe the common wisdom saying there are too many bad caches, so I don't think COs need to be harassed more. But the armchair NMs or NAs that I see almost always strike me as well justified, nothing at all like harassment.

More to the point of this thread, the gist of the original complaint is how an automated process is harassing COs with no human involved to judge as competent or incompetent. We've had COs grumbling about quitting over that, as well. Given two faulty approaches, I prefer the one that involves personal interaction among friendly peers who take responsibility for what claims they make.

[+Team DEMP]

1 hour ago, Nicc from KS said:

So, if a handful of newbs can't find a cache that is actually there, it gets hit with 4 or  DNFs. Some armchair NM/NA cacher sees this and posts a NA without actually looking for the cache. And this seems justifiable because of the DNFs? I only have one account. 

More hypothetical made up situations that benefit your opinion. Please read the real, actual, true to life examples that aren't made up in my post yesterday. Every one required an analytical assessment based on the type of cache, difficulty, text within the DNFs, the # of finds associated with those that made the DNF, the NMs that were posted and ignored, the time period of the DNFs, the activity of the CO, and other factors.  All of that data drove a valid NM --> NA --> Archive workflow on a cache I never visited. All of them allowed the CO months of opportunity throughout the process with no response.  All of the NMs/NAs were logged with info on why they were relevant and the reviewer took that into account when taking the first action - temp disable with a final alert to the CO. 

So no, a handful of newbs with some DNFs aren't going to cause anyone to NM/NA a cache following the above approach. 

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

Maybe it's time to file a feature request: only allow NM/NA after logging a found or DNF log.

DNF: "workaround"

NA: "Based on the recent logs, there is no point in trying to find this cache until the owner replaces it. Specifically,..."

DNF: [delete]

Yeah, that'll be an effective feature.

[+on4bam]

This forum needs an irony/sarcasm meter.

 

[+niraD]

10 minutes ago, on4bam said:

This forum needs an irony/sarcasm meter.

 

➻11

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

If you again take a moment to not respond in the forum but read the actual cases I referenced in my earlier post, you'll see 4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months where the "people" you are referring to are not logging a NM/NA. Your non-action isn't doing anything to clean up the missing or severely unmaintained caches. That's fine - just don't complain about them or those that don't want to sit by. 

One of my caches (GC5H5G2) had five DNFs over a twelve month period a year or so back, but I'm kind of glad no-one logged an armchair NM or NA on it. Some of the DNFers went back and found it on their second attempt and others have found it easily and given it FPs. The hiding place can be easily dismissed, especially if you're not looking from the right angle, and the container probably doesn't match the searcher's preconceptions of what they're looking for, even though the description, hint and even the cache title ought to pretty much give it away if taken literally,

I said all that because, even though a pattern of DNF logs might suggest a problem, I think it's generally a good idea to visit the site before logging an NM/NA to see first hand if there might be other factors at work. Of course, I don't have any qualms with armchair NMs if it's a problem on the cache page like a broken link, and I'm sure there'll be situations when it's pretty clear-cut from the logs but, for me, I'd still like to actually see the place first.