Demonising the DNF

[+dprovan]

37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

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 agree that a pattern of DNFs alone is not enough to base action on. That's why I don't like the cache health score and, particularly, triggering warning e-mails based on it. Before I'd take action without visiting GZ, I'd have to find sufficient reason within the the text of the DNFs while factoring in the posted difficulty and the past history and possibly some other stuff.

41 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

Why are you glad? Would it have been a big deal if someone had asked for you to check on it without themselves visiting GZ? As far as I can see, there are only a few possibilities, and none of them seem bad. They could have made a good case, thus leading you to check on the cache even though it was there. Or they could have made a good case, and the cache actually ended up being missing. Or they could have made a bad case, and you could explain why it was bad in your armchair OM. I see no problems with any of those scenarios: they're all just friends talking about the geocache.

Furthermore, if someone had filed an armchair NM based on a good argument, then that would generally mean that that exact same NM could have been filed by the last person who did visit GZ, so I don't understand why your degree of pleasure with the NM would have anything to do with whether it was from an armchair.

[+Team DEMP]

46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

That GC5H5G2 cache never had a string of DNFs and no one assessing the state of the cache would log a NM or NA.  In addition, there are frequent OMs posted showing an active cache owner. Nothing about GC5H5G2 matches what is being described here for NMs/NAs without an in-person visit. 

Maybe I'll get to Sydney some day and I can log an in-person Find or DNF on it. 

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

That GC5H5G2 cache never had a string of DNFs and no one assessing the state of the cache would log a NM or NA.  In addition, there are frequent OMs posted showing an active cache owner. Nothing about GC5H5G2 matches what is being described here for NMs/NAs without an in-person visit. 

Maybe I'll get to Sydney some day and I can log an in-person Find or DNF on it. 

I agree. 

GC5H5G2 by barefootjeff is an example of a good cache with a responsible cache owner. Barefootjeff checked his caches quickly anytime one or two DNFs were posted. Nice to see. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

Why are you glad? Would it have been a big deal if someone had asked for you to check on it without themselves visiting GZ? As far as I can see, there are only a few possibilities, and none of them seem bad. They could have made a good case, thus leading you to check on the cache even though it was there. Or they could have made a good case, and the cache actually ended up being missing. Or they could have made a bad case, and you could explain why it was bad in your armchair OM. I see no problems with any of those scenarios: they're all just friends talking about the geocache.

Furthermore, if someone had filed an armchair NM based on a good argument, then that would generally mean that that exact same NM could have been filed by the last person who did visit GZ, so I don't understand why your degree of pleasure with the NM would have anything to do with whether it was from an armchair.

I said I was kind of glad - an NM from one of the DNFers certainly wouldn't have bothered me and I'd have gladly gone and checked on it, as I did do anyway after some of the DNFs (it's only half an hour away so a quick check is no big deal). I'd have been less pleased with an armchair NM (and even less so with an NA!) as I think some knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ would really be needed to justify one. Actually I'm about to go around there now to do my usual post-school-holidays check on all my Patonga hides as it's a popular holiday spot and inquisitive little fingers can find all manner of things.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Team DEMP said:

That GC5H5G2 cache never had a string of DNFs and no one assessing the state of the cache would log a NM or NA.

Sorry, it's just that you didn't say anything about strings of DNFs, just "4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months". But, a cache I found a couple of weeks back did have quite a few strings of DNFs - prior to the last two finds there were five consecutive DNFs - but it was a D3 and again, actually seeing what's at GZ I think would be a prerequisite to any thought of an NM or NA.

[+L0ne.R]

35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Sorry, it's just that you didn't say anything about strings of DNFs, just "4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months". But, a cache I found a couple of weeks back did have quite a few strings of DNFs - prior to the last two finds there were five consecutive DNFs - but it was a D3 and again, actually seeing what's at GZ I think would be a prerequisite to any thought of an NM or NA.

Did anyone log an NM on that cache? Is the cache owner active? And did a reviewer get involved?

In Temp's examples the caches were low D-rated, the owners were gone, or set-em-and-forget-em cache owners, some even appeared to be 'disable then do nothing, hoping someone comes along with a throwdown before the reviewer archives the cache' CO types. 

[+Team DEMP]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

3 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

That GC5H5G2 cache never had a string of DNFs and no one assessing the state of the cache would log a NM or NA.

Sorry, it's just that you didn't say anything about strings of DNFs, just "4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months". But, a cache I found a couple of weeks back did have quite a few strings of DNFs - prior to the last two finds there were five consecutive DNFs - but it was a D3 and again, actually seeing what's at GZ I think would be a prerequisite to any thought of an NM or NA.

Please review the real examples I posted a day ago and let me know which caches should not have received a NM/NA and the reason you believe behind your decision. 

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

3 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

That GC5H5G2 cache never had a string of DNFs and no one assessing the state of the cache would log a NM or NA.

Sorry, it's just that you didn't say anything about strings of DNFs, just "4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months". But, a cache I found a couple of weeks back did have quite a few strings of DNFs - prior to the last two finds there were five consecutive DNFs - but it was a D3 and again, actually seeing what's at GZ I think would be a prerequisite to any thought of an NM or NA.

Please review the real examples I posted a day ago and let me know which caches should not have received a NM/NA and the reason you believe behind your decision. 

Sorry, I've clearly misread your intent. I thought you were saying that 4, 5, 9+ DNFs over 6-12 months in itself was sufficient justification for logging NMs and NAs without visiting GZ.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Did anyone log an NM on that cache? Is the cache owner active? And did a reviewer get involved?

The CO of that cache last logged into the site a few weeks ago but hasn't found any caches for a couple of years. Does that make them active or not? It doesn't matter, not yet at any rate, as in spite of all the DNFs (114 finds, 62 DNFs and 27 FPs) no-one who's been to GZ and seen just why it's a D3 has been sufficiently convinced it was missing to log an NM and rightly so, as the original 10-year-old cache is definitely there and in near pristine condition. Had I not found it I wouldn't have logged an NM either as there are so many ways a cache could be concealed at that site.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I said I was kind of glad - an NM from one of the DNFers certainly wouldn't have bothered me and I'd have gladly gone and checked on it, as I did do anyway after some of the DNFs (it's only half an hour away so a quick check is no big deal). I'd have been less pleased with an armchair NM (and even less so with an NA!) as I think some knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ would really be needed to justify one.

If the last DNF logger provided enough information so that you would have been fine with him filing a DNF, what the heck difference does it make it someone else, reading that DNF, files an NM? He doesn't need any new knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ: he just needs to trust what the person filing the DNF said.

[+on4bam]

7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

 He doesn't need any new knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ: he just needs to trust what the person filing the DNF said.

Read the Find it-Didn't find thread. That's enough to see if logs can be trusted. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

If the last DNF logger provided enough information so that you would have been fine with him filing a DNF, what the heck difference does it make it someone else, reading that DNF, files an NM? He doesn't need any new knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ: he just needs to trust what the person filing the DNF said.

Because a DNF doesn't imply a cache needs maintenance, it only says someone didn't find it. It's up to the person logging the DNF as to whether they think the cache is likely missing or if it's more likely the hiding place has just defeated them on the day. None of the DNF logs said they thought it was missing, indeed several of them said they were pretty sure it wasn't but the hiding place eluded them, but as a courtesy, and particularly as it's pretty close to home, I generally dash over for a quick check anyway and message the DNFer to ask if they'd like any more hints.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

If the last DNF logger provided enough information so that you would have been fine with him filing a DNF, what the heck difference does it make it someone else, reading that DNF, files an NM? He doesn't need any new knowledge of the lay of the land around GZ: he just needs to trust what the person filing the DNF said.

Okay, in trying to make a bit more sense of this, I assume you meant "filing an NM" instead of "filing a DNF". So, why am I happier accepting an NM from a person who was actually at GZ rather than from someone who's never been there extrapolating other DNF logs to file an NM? Simply because an assessment at GZ will likely provide insight as to why one or more people have logged DNFs. How well does the site lend itself to hiding a cache that'd be tricky to spot? You won't know until you go there. Logging armchair NMs just seems a bit presumptuous to me, that's all, and if you're near enough to the cache for the DNFs to bother you, why not just take the time to actually go and have a look? You never know, you might just be the one who spots the tricky camo and finds it.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Read the Find it-Didn't find thread. That's enough to see if logs can be trusted. 

 

Completely different animal.

The FI=DFI thread is full of logs from individuals who care little to nothing about whether they actually find the cache - so long as they get a smiley. Hence I'm less likely to trust that they performed a thorough assessment and search than someone who has taken the time to log a DNF containing useful information about how/why that DNF came about.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

None of the DNF logs said they thought it was missing, indeed several of them said they were pretty sure it wasn't but the hiding place eluded

How would a person become pretty sure something they couldn't find was still there?

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How would a person become pretty sure something they couldn't find was still there?

Most of my own DNFs fall into that category. Previous found it logs saying it was a tricky find, I suppose, or a hiding place with lots of potential for concealing a cache, or a location where it'd be unlikely to be muggled, or even not enough time to do a proper search. There are lots of ways to not find something when it isn't missing.

[anpefi]

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How would a person become pretty sure something they couldn't find was still there?

Experience. I use to DNF some caches (specially from some owners) after 20-30 min search being pretty sure the cache is there. FI logs the day after confirm that. When I finally find it, sometime in my fourth visit to the GZ, I usually get surprised how I couldn't find before. Of course, I am a terrible seeker. But experience gives you that sense of if you are DNF-ing because a cache problem or just having a bad day. From the times I give a DNF explicitly saying that I thought the cache was missing, only once it was a false negative, and that because other geocacher had hide the cache in slightly different location (2m away of the obvious place). Obviously, you cannot be absolutely sure

[+Team Microdot]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

24 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How would a person become pretty sure something they couldn't find was still there?

Most of my own DNFs fall into that category. Previous found it logs saying it was a tricky find, I suppose, or a hiding place with lots of potential for concealing a cache, or a location where it'd be unlikely to be muggled, or even not enough time to do a proper search. There are lots of ways to not find something when it isn't missing.

So, in truth - you still have no idea if it's still there or not.

 

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How would a person become pretty sure something they couldn't find was still there?

Most of my own DNFs fall into that category. Previous found it logs saying it was a tricky find, I suppose, or a hiding place with lots of potential for concealing a cache, or a location where it'd be unlikely to be muggled, or even not enough time to do a proper search. There are lots of ways to not find something when it isn't missing.

So, in truth - you still have no idea if it's still there or not.

I do when someone else goes out there shortly after me and finds it. Or the one out on the end of a boardwalk where my caching friend, who doesn't drink coffee, went out and found it while I was in the cafe. I passed him on the way back, he said it was an easy find but I spent the best part of an hour out there and couldn't spot it. Just to rub salt into the wound, another friend went out there later in the day and found it. So yes, I know with absolute certainty that that cache wasn't missing when I DNFed it.

[+Team Microdot]

8 minutes ago, anpefi said:

Obviously, you cannot be absolutely sure

Quite.

All you have is a hunch devoid of any evidence to back it up.

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I do when someone else goes out there shortly after me and finds it. Or the one out on the end of a boardwalk where my caching friend, who doesn't drink coffee, went out and found it while I was in the cafe. I passed him on the way back, he said it was an easy find but I spent the best part of an hour out there and couldn't spot it. Just to rub salt into the wound, another friend went out there later in the day and found it. So yes, I know with absolute certainty that that cache wasn't missing when I DNFed it.

AFTER the event.

Your hunch during your search - the one which leads you to be pretty sure it's still there is nothing more than a hunch, devoid of any evidence to back it up.

A hundred DNF'ers in a row could say they were pretty sure it was still there and it would count for nothing.

[anpefi]

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Quite.

All you have is a hunch devoid of any evidence to back it up.

From a Bayesian point of view, what I have is a posterior probability obtained from what I observe (I can not find the cache) and my priors (If I am I will find it with a certain probability depending on its difficulty and the way I look). This example of Han Solo and The Empires Strikes Back! illustrates what I say. I may not have evidence, but the predictions I make are pretty accurate, so you don't need always atrong evidences, just a good predicitive model

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I do when someone else goes out there shortly after me and finds it. Or the one out on the end of a boardwalk where my caching friend, who doesn't drink coffee, went out and found it while I was in the cafe. I passed him on the way back, he said it was an easy find but I spent the best part of an hour out there and couldn't spot it. Just to rub salt into the wound, another friend went out there later in the day and found it. So yes, I know with absolute certainty that that cache wasn't missing when I DNFed it.

AFTER the event.

Your hunch during your search - the one which leads you to be pretty sure it's still there is nothing more than a hunch, devoid of any evidence to back it up.

A hundred DNF'ers in a row could say they were pretty sure it was still there and it would count for nothing.

Well, in that particular instance, the fact that my friend had found it half an hour before I looked was pretty strong evidence I think. But there are plenty of times when I know I haven't exhausted all possibilities, and even when I think I have, at least once I've sent a photo of where I was looking to the CO and he's said, "Yes, you were looking in the right place as I can see the cache in your picture." I still logged the DNF.

[+Team Microdot]

12 minutes ago, anpefi said:

From a Bayesian point of view, what I have is a posterior probability...

Bayesian probability - statistical guessing.

I'm guessing the CHS relies significantly on the same sort of statistical guessing and, if this very thread is anything to go by - that's very far from reliable

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well, in that particular instance, the fact that my friend had found it half an hour before I looked was pretty strong evidence I think. But there are plenty of times when I know I haven't exhausted all possibilities, and even when I think I have, at least once I've sent a photo of where I was looking to the CO and he's said, "Yes, you were looking in the right place as I can see the cache in your picture." I still logged the DNF.

If only you'd raised these points in your original argument...

Of course once someone's told you it's there it's no longer a hunch so not what was originally being discussed, aye?

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If only you'd raised these points in your original argument...

Of course once someone's told you it's there it's no longer a hunch so not what was originally being discussed, aye?

Now I'm confused. You're objecting to me originally saying "pretty sure", but that's not the same as "absolutely sure", not by a long shot. To me, "pretty sure" is something considerably better than 50:50, maybe 75:25. I'm pretty sure it won't rain tomorrow. An example of a log that I thought indicated the DNFer was pretty sure it wasn't missing said, simply, "You beat me this time but I'll be back!" If you're reading that as "I think the cache might be missing", well...

[+Team Microdot]

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

An example of a log that I thought indicated the DNFer was pretty sure it wasn't missing said, simply, "You beat me this time but I'll be back!"

That log just indicates that they didn't find it.

You can take that as evidence that the cache is still there if you really want to. I wouldn't.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

Discussing appropriate NM/NA logging has nothing to do with a DNF or even a couple of DNFs so why waste your energy coming up with hypothetical situations. DNFs provide some info regarding the cache, but that alone would never be the sole cause for reporting an issue, so maybe we can stop making an issue out of it where none really exists?

 

Who? What now?

[+Team DEMP]

Discussing appropriate NM/NA logging has nothing to do with a DNF or even a couple of DNFs so why waste your energy coming up with hypothetical situations. DNFs provide some info regarding the cache, but that alone would never be the sole cause for reporting an issue, so maybe we can stop making an issue out of it where none really exists?

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

An example of a log that I thought indicated the DNFer was pretty sure it wasn't missing said, simply, "You beat me this time but I'll be back!"

That log just indicates that they didn't find it.

You can take that as evidence that the cache is still there if you really want to. I wouldn't.

There's a big difference between saying "I'm pretty sure it isn't missing" and "I have evidence it's still there". One is subjective, the other's objective.

Edit to add: I clearly didn't take that as evidence, as right after that log is an OM from me saying I'd gone up there and checked on it.

Edited October 10, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Team Microdot]

9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

An example of a log that I thought indicated the DNFer was pretty sure it wasn't missing said, simply, "You beat me this time but I'll be back!"

That log just indicates that they didn't find it.

You can take that as evidence that the cache is still there if you really want to. I wouldn't.

There's a big difference between saying "I'm pretty sure it isn't missing" and "I have evidence it's still there". One is subjective, the other's objective.

Edit to add: I clearly didn't take that as evidence, as right after that log is an OM from me saying I'd gone up there and checked on it.

Yes - one of them means something and the other means nothing - that's my whole point.

Earlier it was as if you were suggesting that some person feeling as if the cache they couldn't find was still there was useful or meaningful in some significant way - but it isn't.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yes - one of them means something and the other means nothing - that's my whole point.

Earlier it was as if you were suggesting that some person feeling as if the cache they couldn't find was still there was useful or meaningful in some significant way - but it isn't.

It is in the sense of the preceding discussion as to whether it was reasonable to log an armchair NM based on some number of DNFs in a 12 month period. If the DNFs are neutral on the question of the cache being missing, or suggest a likelihood that it isn't, it'd be pretty hard to justify that NM I think.

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It is in the sense of the preceding discussion as to whether it was reasonable to log an armchair NM based on some number of DNFs in a 12 month period. If the DNFs are neutral on the question of the cache being missing, or suggest a likelihood that it isn't, it'd be pretty hard to justify that NM I think.

And round we go again in another circle.

A person who has not found a cache is in no position to suggest that the cache isn't missing.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

And round we go again in another circle.

A person who has not found a cache is in no position to suggest that the cache isn't missing.

I've done that in the past and will continue to do that in circumstances where I think, on the balance of probabilities, it's most likely a Blind Freddy moment and I just didn't spot it this time. To use your word, it's a suggestion, not proof.

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

And round we go again in another circle.

A person who has not found a cache is in no position to suggest that the cache isn't missing.

I've done that in the past and will continue to do that in circumstances where I think, on the balance of probabilities, it's most likely a Blind Freddy moment and I just didn't spot it this time. To use your word, it's a suggestion, not proof.

Magical thinking.

[+justintim1999]

Is it possible to determine that a cache is missing without ever visiting gz?   Sure it is.  I just don't agree with the practice.   I personally wouldn't post a NM or a DNF on a cache I didn't actually look for.  

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Magical thinking.

Maybe, but most of the time when I haven't thought it was missing, it wasn't.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Is it possible to determine that a cache is missing without ever visiting gz?   Sure it is.  I just don't agree with the practice.   I personally wouldn't post a NM or a DNF on a cache I didn't actually look for.  

No - only to make an educated guess.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Magical thinking.

Maybe, but most of the time when I haven't thought it was missing, it wasn't.

QED.

[+on4bam]

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe, but most of the time when I haven't thought it was missing, it wasn't.

That's about the best argument against armchair NM/NA in the whole thread.

 

[+Team Microdot]

28 minutes ago, on4bam said:

36 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe, but most of the time when I haven't thought it was missing, it wasn't.

That's about the best argument against armchair NM/NA in the whole thread.

How sad.

[+coachstahly]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Bayesian probability - statistical guessing.

I'm guessing the CHS relies significantly on the same sort of statistical guessing and, if this very thread is anything to go by - that's very far from reliable

I'm confused as to what side of the table you're actually on.  This is the same type of argument the people who armchair log a NM/NA log use.  There's no evidence; only the suggested probability that it might actually be missing.  Are you saying that it's OK for armchair loggers to use DNF logs (and other assorted information at their disposal) to file a NM/NA log but NOT OK for people who actually visit GZ to use DNF logs (and other assorted information at their disposal) to make an assumption that the cache might actually still be there? 

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm confused as to what side of the table you're actually on.  This is the same type of argument the people who armchair log a NM/NA log use.  There's no evidence; only the suggested probability that it might actually be missing.  Are you saying that it's OK for armchair loggers to use DNF logs (and other assorted information at their disposal) to file a NM/NA log but NOT OK for people who actually visit GZ to use DNF logs (and other assorted information at their disposal) to make an assumption that the cache might actually still be there? 

Which table are we talking about?

ETA - and no - I'm not saying anything like that - I'm saying that a gut feeling that the cache that you've not seen is still there has no evidential basis.

Not sure why people seem to be struggling with this.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Team Microdot
addition

[+Team DEMP]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe, but most of the time when I haven't thought it was missing, it wasn't.

That's about the best argument against armchair NM/NA in the whole thread.

Please expand how there's difference between someone logging a NM/NA after assessing say the last 12+ logs on a cache or a single cacher posting a NM after their one DNF without looking at other logs? 

Even more meaningful, what's incorrect with the 8 caches referenced in my post from Sunday afternoon. I would appropriately argue that the NM/NA posted without visiting the cache was much more relevant and beneficial to the community than the prior recent logs of those that did visit the cache. If there was no NM/NA posted, there'd still be an unmaintained cache by an unresponsive cache owner listed included in the game. What's cleaning up the trash - yet another DNF logged by someone that went to the cache or the NM/NA? 

Take away the hypothetical and discuss the actual and we'd have a meaningful discussion. 

[+coachstahly]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Which table are we talking about?

Really?  Such a wordsmith such as yourself should understand the question at hand.  You appear to give Jeff a hard time about his process regarding why he thinks a cache might still be in play, even though he DNFed it, but have no problem with a computer (and possibly armchair loggers of NM/NA logs) using the same type of thinking to determine that a cache might be MIA or need some maintenance.  There are times I've DNFed a cache and thought that it might be missing, based on my visit and previous logs, and there are times I've DNFed a cache, and thought it might still be there, based on my visit and previous logs.  I've been both right and wrong in both scenarios.

[+coachstahly]

As to TeamDEMP's situations, I offer this one up as a counter to armchair logging of NM/NA logs.  It was a 1.5/1.5 with 10 previous DNFs over almost a year and a NM log suggesting that they think it's gone, as do many of the DNF logs.  Turns out I found the original container on the ground (it was a film can with a taped hook to hang on the fence) with signed logs dating to 2008.  It's my assumption the replacement went missing and then turned up again as it looks like a matchstick container in later logs.  My find is from 7/2/11.  It's my guess that TeamDEMP would have posted the NM/NA log if in the area based on the logs prior to my find.  Am I correct in that assumption?

https://coord.info/GCM69R

[+Team Microdot]

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Really?  Such a wordsmith such as yourself should understand the question at hand.  You appear to give Jeff a hard time about his process regarding why he thinks a cache might still be in play, even though he DNFed it, but have no problem with a computer (and possibly armchair loggers of NM/NA logs) using the same type of thinking to determine that a cache might be MIA or need some maintenance.  There are times I've DNFed a cache and thought that it might be missing, based on my visit and previous logs, and there are times I've DNFed a cache, and thought it might still be there, based on my visit and previous logs.  I've been both right and wrong in both scenarios.

I would argue that my understanding of the question has more to do with the writer - which is why I sought clarification.

If I am giving Jeff a hard time the only reason is because he clings to this idea that gut feel about a cache he hasn't seen has some evidential value while vehemently opposing the idea that an algorithm centred on statistical probability based on previous logs has any less worth - as though one finger-in-the-wind guess should be trusted while the other finger-in-the-wind guess should be reviled.

The icing on the cake I suppose was another poster suggesting that bayesian analysis together with gut feel was a sure-fire way to be certain that a cache one could not and had never found was probably still there.

I'm just trying to point out a basic fact. That's all really. I've no idea why people are so reluctant to accept it.

 

[+coachstahly]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I would argue that my understanding of the question has more to do with the writer - which is why I sought clarification.

If I am giving Jeff a hard time the only reason is because he clings to this idea that gut feel about a cache he hasn't seen has some evidential value while vehemently opposing the idea that an algorithm centred on statistical probability based on previous logs has any less worth - as though one finger-in-the-wind guess should be trusted while the other finger-in-the-wind guess should be reviled.

The icing on the cake I suppose was another poster suggesting that bayesian analysis together with gut feel was a sure-fire way to be certain that a cache one could not and had never found was probably still there.

I'm just trying to point out a basic fact. That's all really. I've no idea why people are so reluctant to accept it.

 

That makes sense to me and I agree.  Do you support the algorithm's use with regard to the CHS and the subsequent email?  

I was leaning toward it as a good thing but with my friends' recent emails on caches that were perfectly fine, I'm thinking that it still has some issues.  I realize the email doesn't MEAN anything and cachers are free to ignore it, but the CHS was used (apparently as one of many criteria) for selection of a virtual reward.  If it's going to have that type of importance/relevance in the future, then it needs to be adjusted so as not to generate as many false positives as it did recently, at least in my area and Red Sox Mark's area.  No, I do NOT know if the COs emailed Groundspeak to notify them of the fact that the email was sent erroneously but I know if I had received one in error, I would have emailed them.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

That makes sense to me and I agree.  Do you support the algorithm's use with regard to the CHS and the subsequent email? 

Yes - I do.

Do I think it's perfect? No.

Do I think it needs to be perfect? No.

On balance, would I keep it the way it is rather than not have it at all? Yes.

Are there better solutions? Potentially - but they are so very unlikely to come to fruition unless there's a quantum shift in attitudes.

[+coachstahly]

The follow up question then becomes - Do you support Jeff's same use of previous logs and other criteria (like the algorithm) to make an assumption that a cache might still be there and that he just missed it?

 

I'm NOT asking about your thoughts about the dichotomy between his two points of view.  That's been made clear.