Demonising the DNF

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

It isn't a question of less maintenance.

It's a question about fewer useless OM logs when the owner hasn't really done anything that seekers should know about.

But it is.  The whole opposition to the CHS and how it handles dnfs is about less required maintenance.   

Sorry but I don't see OM logs (no matter how many there are) as useless. 

I'm not advocating running out to your cache after every dnf.  I am about raising the bar on owner maintenance.  

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Please explain why you would take the time to visit one of your caches and not check on it's condition while you were there?     

In many cases, my concern was not with the cache's contents, but whether or not it had been dislodged from its hiding spot (thus ruining the effectiveness of its camouflage). I could tell that it had not been dislodged from a distance, and had no need to "open it up to check it out". Or I have visited the cache location for some other purpose, and could see the cache in passing, but saw no need to "open it up to check it out". Also, I have visited these cache locations more often than the caches were being found by others, and I didn't think it would be productive for there to be more OM logs than Find logs in the cache's history.

One of my caches is in a spot prone to flash flooding and on the cache page I've asked people to wedge the concealing rock against the side to prevent it and the cache from moving. People being people, though, more often than not they don't, so every time that one gets a find I go over to check and adjust the rock if need be. I usually don't even touch the container, let alone open it, so I reserve my OMs on that one for the times it gets a more thorough spring clean or after there's been flooding rain.

Edited October 17, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

48 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

But it is.  The whole opposition to the CHS and how it handles dnfs is about less required maintenance.   

No, it isn't. It's about email that offers the CO the option of visiting the cache location (either now or later) or archiving the cache, when there is nothing in the written logs that indicates that there is any problem with the cache.

48 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Sorry but I don't see OM logs (no matter how many there are) as useless. 

If you say so. I disagree.

 Found it                                                            2017-04-28

 I looked right at it last time and didn't see it. Very clever hide. TNLNSL

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-26

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-19

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-12

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-05

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-29

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-22

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-15

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-08

Right where it should be

 Found it                                                            2017-03-05

Clever hide! Enjoyed the challenge. SL.

Edited October 17, 2017 by niraD

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

It's a question about fewer useless OM logs when the owner hasn't really done anything that seekers should know about.

I agree that useless logs of all types, especially OMs, should be avoided. I just disagree that an OM is always useless unless the CO does something.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

If you say so. I disagree.

Delete the previous one(s) if identical OM log. That's what I would do. New OM log = new activity. Old identical OM log practically irrelevant.

[+coachstahly]

14 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

  I am about raising the bar on owner maintenance.  

So more OM logs raise the bar?  I'm guessing that the crowd participating in this particular thread doesn't need to be the ones raising the bar on owner maintenance.  I'll post an OM log when I feel it's warranted.  Based on other COs in my area, I already post more than the average CO.  I don't feel the need to do it more than I already am.

No one here is lowering the bar (or asking for it to be lowered) when it comes to owner maintenance.  I just don't think more OM logs mean you're a better CO than someone who posts OM logs less frequently.

 

[+justintim1999]

14 hours ago, niraD said:

No, it isn't. It's about email that offers the CO the option of visiting the cache location (either now or later) or archiving the cache, when there is nothing in the written logs that indicates that there is any problem with the cache.

If you say so. I disagree.

 Found it                                                            2017-04-28

 I looked right at it last time and didn't see it. Very clever hide. TNLNSL

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-26

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-19

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-12

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-04-05

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-29

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-22

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-15

Right where it should be

 Owner Maintenance                                        2017-03-08

Right where it should be

 Found it                                                            2017-03-05

Clever hide! Enjoyed the challenge. SL.

Now this is my type of cache owner.   If they have the time and willingness to be this proactive than more power to them.  I'd rather see this level of commitment than no cache owner involvement at all.   I'd have no trouble going after this cache as it's obviously there and in good shape.

As usual we are presented with an extreme example not representative of the vast majority of owner's maintenance logs out there just to try to prove a point.   I could provide dozens of example of pages that display good, reasonable cache maintenance but that would be boring.       

[+justintim1999]

32 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

So more OM logs raise the bar?  I'm guessing that the crowd participating in this particular thread doesn't need to be the ones raising the bar on owner maintenance.  I'll post an OM log when I feel it's warranted.  Based on other COs in my area, I already post more than the average CO.  I don't feel the need to do it more than I already am.

No one here is lowering the bar (or asking for it to be lowered) when it comes to owner maintenance.  I just don't think more OM logs mean you're a better CO than someone who posts OM logs less frequently.

 

GS has already raised the bar with the CHS.  

As I've said before, a cache owner controls their own destiny.  OM logs, now more than ever,  are critical in determining who's still active and taking care of their caches and who isn't.   I doubt that the cache owner In the example NariD provided will ever hear from GS and most owners out there won't ether.  

This isn't about spending all your free time doing cache maintenance and I don't think GS expects that.   It is about setting a standard and level of commitment that's expected when one decided to become a cache owner.  It's also about realizing that times have changed and like it or not the CHS is here to stay.  Being consistent in your logging and choosing the correct log for the correct situation is more important than ever.

I know this has strayed away from the original post so to bring it back around again I'll say this.   If anything the misuse of dnfs is what's causing the issue not the CHS.   We've demonized it by not using it as I think it was intended.

[+coachstahly]

8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

GS has already raised the bar with the CHS.  

Until I see actual cache improvement, I don't think it's actually done a whole lot more than what was in place originally.  There are just as many wrenches out there as there were before the CHS and both the disable and archive rates appear to be about the same in my area.  I would assume, if it's used as intended, that the eventual disabling of caches due to a low CHS email being ignored would either lead to archived caches or caches that have been cleaned up at a higher rate than before the CHS.  I'm just not seeing that on a consistent basis.

Case in point.  Of the first 40 caches that have been disabled within 100 miles of my home location, only 4 appear (no active NM logs and multiple DNFs) to be due to a CHS violation (and I agree with all 4).  That's a 10% rate of disabled caches but a MUCH smaller percentage of all caches out there.  The other 90% of caches disabled are either disabled by the COs or disabled by the reviewer due to NM logs that have gone unanswered (community based, not CHS based).  Not being able to look at archived caches, I have no data to determine the reason for the archival so I can't make any claims about the CHS being the impetus that led to the archive.  My guess is that it's roughly the same percentage.   If the goal of the CHS is to improve cache maintenance across the board, it's doing it in an awfully small manner.

[Keystone]

28 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Of the first 40 caches that have been disabled within 100 miles of my home location, only 4 appear (no active NM logs and multiple DNFs) to be due to a CHS violation (and I agree with all 4).  That's a 10% rate of disabled caches but a MUCH smaller percentage of all caches out there.  The other 90% of caches disabled are either disabled by the COs or disabled by the reviewer due to NM logs that have gone unanswered (community based, not CHS based).  Not being able to look at archived caches, I have no data to determine the reason for the archival so I can't make any claims about the CHS being the impetus that led to the archive.  My guess is that it's roughly the same percentage.   If the goal of the CHS is to improve cache maintenance across the board, it's doing it in an awfully small manner.

Since "Needs Maintenance" logs aren't automatically brought to a reviewer's attention, how do you think that reviewers are spotting caches with unanswered NM logs, and disabling them?  Answer:  The cache health score makes this task immensely easier, empowering reviewers to do a better job of ensuring a well-maintained gameboard.

Since the introduction of the cache health score, I've materially increased the amount of time and attention I devote to maintenance issues vs. two years ago.  I archived more than 200 caches in the past 30 days due to maintenance issues.

[+justintim1999]

9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Until I see actual cache improvement, I don't think it's actually done a whole lot more than what was in place originally.  There are just as many wrenches out there as there were before the CHS and both the disable and archive rates appear to be about the same in my area.  I would assume, if it's used as intended, that the eventual disabling of caches due to a low CHS email being ignored would either lead to archived caches or caches that have been cleaned up at a higher rate than before the CHS.  I'm just not seeing that on a consistent basis.

Case in point.  Of the first 40 caches that have been disabled within 100 miles of my home location, only 4 appear (no active NM logs and multiple DNFs) to be due to a CHS violation (and I agree with all 4).  That's a 10% rate of disabled caches but a MUCH smaller percentage of all caches out there.  The other 90% of caches disabled are either disabled by the COs or disabled by the reviewer due to NM logs that have gone unanswered (community based, not CHS based).  Not being able to look at archived caches, I have no data to determine the reason for the archival so I can't make any claims about the CHS being the impetus that led to the archive.  My guess is that it's roughly the same percentage.   If the goal of the CHS is to improve cache maintenance across the board, it's doing it in an awfully small manner.

4 for 4 on the CHS disabled caches.    That's 100%.  Although the number is small so is the area we're talking about.  If that number was a typical result than we're looking at around 200,000 caches world wide that were rightfully identified and archived.   Not bad.     The ones disabled by owners are consistent with normal owner activity.  We'll see how many of those are enabled or archived.  

The issues associated with the CHS are not rampant and I didn't expect the results to be earth shattering.   As a tool for reviewers to use I think it's preforming just fine.  

I think the goal of the CHS is to assist reviewers in identifying troubled caches whether they be caches that are abandoned or neglected.   It's up to the geocaching community to push good cache maintenance.    I think knowing that the CHS exists puts a new focus on maintaining your caches.

     

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I doubt that the cache owner In the example NariD provided will ever hear from GS and most owners out there won't ether.  

Sure, if your goal is to placate the automated CHS system, those kind of logs are great.

But if your goal is to communicate with people (you know, the other geocachers we supposedly play this game with), then those weekly "Right where it should be" OM logs are just noise.

I still think it's pointless to change one's logging patterns to satisfy the CHS. The vast majority are going to keep logging the way they are going to log, and the CHS needs to be able to deal with that.

Edited October 18, 2017 by niraD

[+niraD]

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

20 hours ago, niraD said:

If you say so. I disagree.

Delete the previous one(s) if identical OM log. That's what I would do. New OM log = new activity. Old identical OM log practically irrelevant.

Even if the CO deletes the previous pointless OM logs, anyone watching the cache is still getting spammed with pointless OM logs. Maybe one pointless OM log could be posted, and the date edited every time the CO drops by. That would minimize spamming the cache page, and it would minimize spamming those watching the cache.

[+justintim1999]

34 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sure, if your goal is to placate the automated CHS system, those kind of logs are great.

But if your goal is to communicate with people (you know, the other geocachers we supposedly play this game with), then those weekly "Right where it should be" OM logs are just noise.

I still think it's pointless to change one's logging patters to satisfy the CHS. The vast majority are going to keep logging the way they are going to log, and the CHS needs to be able to deal with that.

So it's reasonable to expect the system to placate each and every individual? 

I don't know about you but an OM log communicates just about everything I need to know.  

When your set in your ways any change seems pointless no matter how simple it is. 

 

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So it's reasonable to expect the system to placate each and every individual? 

The majority are completely unaware of the CHS, not to mention the current speculation about what kinds of logs have what affects on a specific cache's CHS. The reality is that people are going to continue logging the way they log, and that most are paying no attention to the CHS when they log.

I don't see that changing. The system needs to be designed to deal with it.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

As usual we are presented with an extreme example not representative of the vast majority of owner's maintenance logs out there just to try to prove a point.

First, I never claimed to be representative of the majority of cache owners. Second, yes, the example was presented to make a point. You're the one who said "Sorry but I don't see OM logs (no matter how many there are) as useless" and "Shouldn't we, as owners, be posting OM logs every time we visit one of our caches?"

I'm all in favor of owner maintenance. But I don't confuse owner maintenance with OM logs. And owners don't need to post OM logs every time they get within spitting distance of one of their caches.

Edited October 18, 2017 by niraD

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Even if the CO deletes the previous pointless OM logs, anyone watching the cache is still getting spammed with pointless OM logs.

1. If I watch a cache, I expect to be "spammed" with notifications of all sorts.
2. If I receive regular OM logs from someone doing this in this highly rare exceptional case, I would choose to see it as an active responsible CO (noting that issues are not common at all), not a CO trying to spam me with emails of which I can easily opt out.

 

59 minutes ago, niraD said:

The reality is that people are going to continue logging the way they log, and that most are paying no attention to the CHS when they log.

Except those who now feel the DNF is demonized and won't log them at all out of 'consideration' for COs...

(or in other words, yes, I agree, that people should continue to log DNFs just as they've always done :))

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

The majority are completely unaware of the CHS, not to mention the current speculation about what kinds of logs have what affects on a specific cache's CHS. The reality is that people are going to continue logging the way they log, and that most are paying no attention to the CHS when they log.

I don't see that changing. The system needs to be designed to deal with it.

Nothing has changed.  The same factors that effected the health of a cache 10 years ago still apply today.   The only difference is the CHS is allowing reviewers to address these potential problems much faster and more efficiently.

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The only difference is the CHS is allowing reviewers to address these potential problems much faster and more efficiently.

If that were the ONLY difference, then there'd be a lot less discussion in the forums.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

First, I never claimed to be representative of the majority of cache owners. Second, yes, the example was presented to make a point. You're the one who said "Sorry but I don't see OM logs (no matter how many there are) as useless" and "Shouldn't we, as owners, be posting OM logs every time we visit one of our caches?"

I'm all in favor of owner maintenance. But I don't confuse owner maintenance with OM logs. And owners don't need to post OM logs every time they get within spitting distance of one of their caches.

When you check up on your cache,  you know an actual check, you should post a OM log.  Especially if there are a few dnf's (valid or not) on the cache page.   What is so had about that?  It's something that a cache owner should do regardless of the existence of the CHS. 

I realize your part of the minority and I respect your opinion.  What I don't want to see is someone reading your comments and thinking that the CHS is a bad thing just because of a few incidences that don't represent what the CHS is designed to do.     

[+niraD]

26 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

When you check up on your cache,  you know an actual check, you should post a OM log.  Especially if there are a few dnf's (valid or not) on the cache page.   What is so had about that?  It's something that a cache owner should do regardless of the existence of the CHS. 

If there have been a few DNF logs, then an OM log is meaningful. And if it's been a while since I posted an OM log, then a single OM log can be meaningful even if the recent logs paint a rosy picture. But spamming the cache page with pointless OM logs is just noise.

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

If that were the ONLY difference, then there'd be a lot less discussion in the forums.

I'm sure you can provide an example of a maintenance notification that is questionable but how many negative instances have we heard about lately?   Maybe we go to four dnfs before the CHS triggers and maybe we tweak the difficulty and terrain rating to further reduce the chance of a false positive.  Probably has already been done.

For the vast majority of cache owners the CHS is really a non issue unless your not properly maintaining your caches.  

[+justintim1999]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

If there have been a few DNF logs, then an OM log is meaningful. And if it's been a while since I posted an OM log, then a single OM log can be meaningful even if the recent logs paint a rosy picture. But spamming the cache page with pointless OM logs is just noise.

To me that's an over reaction to rare situation.   Don't  you agree your example is not typical and doesn't represent owner maintenance in the real world.   I try to visit my caches twice a year above and beyond regular maintenance issues and I consider myself fanatical.  No one's going to be running out doing maintenance every other week because of the CHS.  

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

For the vast majority of cache owners the CHS is really a non issue unless your not properly maintaining your caches.  

So how can we maintain the value of the CHS for the vast majority of caches and cache owners, while minimizing the negative issues for the vast minority that some of us care about?

[+justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, niraD said:

So how can we maintain the value of the CHS for the vast majority of caches and cache owners, while minimizing the negative issues for the vast minority that some of us care about?

How do you respond logically to that without sounding heartless?   The only thing I can say is I trust in GS to eventually address and solve your particular issues to the best of their abilities without compromising the health and integrity of the game.    

[+niraD]

36 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The only thing I can say is I trust in GS to eventually address and solve your particular issues to the best of their abilities without compromising the health and integrity of the game.

Which naturally requires that Groundspeak be aware of negative issues created by the current implementation of the CHS.

One of the ways to make Groundspeak aware of such issues is to discuss them here in the forums.

Another would be if the CHS-triggered email messages solicited feedback when the messages are sent in error.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't know about you but an OM log communicates just about everything I need to know.

I mostly prefer higher terrain caches that are out in the bush. Reading through past logs, both finds and DNFs (legitimate or otherwise) often gives me useful tips on what path to take, areas to avoid where there might be cliffs or thick undergrowth, a sense of the difficulty getting there and of finding the cache once there. I get none of that from an OM log.

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

Which naturally requires that Groundspeak be aware of negative issues created by the current implementation of the CHS.

One of the ways to make Groundspeak aware of such issues is to discuss them here in the forums.

Another would be if the CHS-triggered email messages solicited feedback when the messages are sent in error.

It's been in this forum that we've received feedback that GS has heard the complaints and is continuing to adjust the CHS to best accommodate everyone.   You can't roll out something of this magnitude and expect it to be perfect out of the gate.    It may never be 100% but from what I've read from people who use it on a regular basis,  it's making a big difference.

[+justintim1999]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I mostly prefer higher terrain caches that are out in the bush. Reading through past logs, both finds and DNFs (legitimate or otherwise) often gives me useful tips on what path to take, areas to avoid where there might be cliffs or thick undergrowth, a sense of the difficulty getting there and of finding the cache once there. I get none of that from an OM log.

Although there's no reason why we can't have both you'd prefer to see the logs instead of an OML that indicates the cache is being maintained?

[+jellis]

Been over this a many times. Some post DNFs when they should be Notes, like  too many muggles, or they look at a DNF on a previous post and decide it's not there so they post a DNF.

I do my best to check most of mine but sometimes it seems a little much if they are still there.

How do you decide to do a NM or NA when the cache is evil?

Here are two of mine. Do I need to go back every time a DNF is posted?

http://coord.info/GC1WFJF

https://coord.info/GC170JW

[+niraD]

38 minutes ago, jellis said:

How do you decide to do a NM or NA when the cache is evil?

Assuming it's a "good evil" cache and not a "bad evil" cache , I don't think someone who hasn't found the actual cache can really log either.

Some of my Favorites are the "good evil" hides where there is no haystack, where you've searched "everywhere it could possibly be" within a few minutes, and then you have to figure out how and where the CO actually hid a cache there. Sometimes seekers can't find it, decide "it must be missing", and post a NM (or even NA) log. The CO confirms that it's still there with an OM log, and then the cache continues to collect a mixture of DNFs and Finds until the next frustrated seeker posts another NM or NA log.

46 minutes ago, jellis said:

Here are two of mine. Do I need to go back every time a DNF is posted?

Absolutely not. For that type of cache, DNF logs are to be expected.

Assuming that there isn't a history of the "evil" cache getting muggled, I'd let it collect a few DNFs before going out of my way to check on it. Of course, if there IS a history of the "evil" cache getting muggled, then you need to deal with that, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. But after 5 DNFs in a row, devices and apps that display the most recent log types as icons will see only DNFs, so an OM can assure people that it's still there.

Of course, the types who ignore caches with a few DNFs are probably not the types who would enjoy a "good evil" cache, so maybe you don't want to post an OM log... 

[+justintim1999]

50 minutes ago, jellis said:

Been over this a many times. Some post DNFs when they should be Notes, like  too many muggles, or they look at a DNF on a previous post and decide it's not there so they post a DNF.

I do my best to check most of mine but sometimes it seems a little much if they are still there.

How do you decide to do a NM or NA when the cache is evil?

Here are two of mine. Do I need to go back every time a DNF is posted?

http://coord.info/GC1WFJF

https://coord.info/GC170JW

As they currently stand I'd say no to both.  One has two dnfs from the same person the other has two dnfs on the same day from two relatively inexperienced cachers.   Although both caches are a 3 difficulty or less it looks as if all actually searched for the caches but just didn't find them.

On one of them you had 6 straight dnfs in the span of 3 months or so from some pretty experienced cachers.  I'm surprised one of them didn't post a NM.  It would have been justified even though the cache was still there.  

 From what I see it appears your a cacher with a good maintenance record.  I'd say your handling things just fine.

Have you received a maintenance notice from GS?  

[+coachstahly]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

On one of them you had 6 straight dnfs in the span of 3 months or so from some pretty experienced cachers.  I'm surprised one of them didn't post a NM.  It would have been justified even though the cache was still there.  

 

On a 3 D cache?  Why would they post the NM log?  Because they think it's gone?  I completely disagree with that thinking, based solely on the rating of the cache.  I wouldn't think it's justified on a cache that is rated "Quite difficult. Be prepared for a mental challenge."  1.5 or 2?  I'd be more inclined to agree with you.  If you had said that they would have been justified posting a note (or emailing the CO for an additional hint and visual sight check) asking for verification that it's still in play, I'd be fine with that.

[+justintim1999]

29 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

On a 3 D cache?  Why would they post the NM log?  Because they think it's gone?  I completely disagree with that thinking, based solely on the rating of the cache.  I wouldn't think it's justified on a cache that is rated "Quite difficult. Be prepared for a mental challenge."  1.5 or 2?  I'd be more inclined to agree with you.  If you had said that they would have been justified posting a note (or emailing the CO for an additional hint and visual sight check) asking for verification that it's still in play, I'd be fine with that.

After 6 dnfs in a row by experienced cachers (I think three of which have over 1000 finds) I'd feel inclined to take a look.  that's what I would do and that's exactly what the actual cache owner did. You obviously look at it differently.  I think the example given was well before the CHS was in effect.  That being said I wager this cache would have been flagged and In my opinion rightfully so.  

[+coachstahly]

7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

After 6 dnfs in a row by experienced cachers (I think three of which have over 1000 finds) I'd feel inclined to take a look.  that's what I would do and that's exactly what the actual cache owner did. You obviously look at it differently.  I think the example given was well before the CHS was in effect.  That being said I wager this cache would have been flagged and In my opinion rightfully so.  

But you didn't say that you'd take a look.  That wasn't the point you raised that I disagreed with.  Instead you said that a NM log would be justified in this situation.  As the CO of that cache, I'm sure I would have taken a look but for me, a NM log, solely because it hasn't been found in a while, isn't warranted or justified, particularly for the cache provided.  A DNF (or a string of DNFs), particularly on a 2.5 D rated (or higher) cache, doesn't mean that it's not there.  If I were the CO of that cache, I'd give it a look but as the seeker that DNFed it, even if I were the 6th or 10th to DNF it, I wouldn't log a NM on it just to get the CO to check on it.  I'd post a note or email the CO, not log a NM asking them to check on the cache.  It seems excessive to me to file the NM on this particular higher rated D cache if all you want to do is have the CO check on it to see if it's there or not.  Surely there's a better way to get the CO to check on it than file something that's going to negatively affect his CHS even more than the DNFs already have.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

But you didn't say that you'd take a look.  That wasn't the point you raised that I disagreed with.  Instead you said that a NM log would be justified in this situation.  As the CO of that cache, I'm sure I would have taken a look but for me, a NM log, solely because it hasn't been found in a while, isn't warranted or justified, particularly for the cache provided.  A DNF (or a string of DNFs), particularly on a 2.5 D rated (or higher) cache, doesn't mean that it's not there.  If I were the CO of that cache, I'd give it a look but as the seeker that DNFed it, even if I were the 6th or 10th to DNF it, I wouldn't log a NM on it just to get the CO to check on it.  I'd post a note or email the CO, not log a NM asking them to check on the cache.  It seems excessive to me to file the NM on this particular higher rated D cache if all you want to do is have the CO check on it to see if it's there or not.  Surely there's a better way to get the CO to check on it than file something that's going to negatively affect his CHS even more than the DNFs already have.

So let me get this straight. In this new age CHS-dominated caching world, not only shouldn't we log a DNF unless we're pretty sure the cache is missing, we shouldn't log an NM if we'd like the CO to check on it either. Sigh.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

After 6 dnfs in a row by experienced cachers (I think three of which have over 1000 finds) I'd feel inclined to take a look.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the "over 1000 finds" thing. A lot of people who have high find counts don't enjoy spending much time searching. I've even heard some tout their "5 minute rule" (or "10 minute rule", or whatever), where they move onto the next cache if they haven't found the current one within 5 minutes (or 10 minutes, or whatever).

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

On 19/10/2017 at 8:08 AM, barefootjeff said:

I mostly prefer higher terrain caches that are out in the bush. Reading through past logs, both finds and DNFs (legitimate or otherwise) often gives me useful tips on what path to take, areas to avoid where there might be cliffs or thick undergrowth, a sense of the difficulty getting there and of finding the cache once there. I get none of that from an OM log.

Although there's no reason why we can't have both you'd prefer to see the logs instead of an OML that indicates the cache is being maintained?

I can think of one reason - PQs are limited to the last 5 logs and in most bushland areas in this part of the world there's no mobile data so, once in the field, that's all I have to go by. In something like the example quoted earlier by niraD, I'd be cursing at all those OM logs.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

After 6 dnfs in a row by experienced cachers (I think three of which have over 1000 finds) I'd feel inclined to take a look.  that's what I would do and that's exactly what the actual cache owner did. You obviously look at it differently.  I think the example given was well before the CHS was in effect.  That being said I wager this cache would have been flagged and In my opinion rightfully so.  

Consider GC4ZAZH, a D5 traditional that's the quintessential needle in a haystack, a (presumably) magnetic micro somewhere on a 40 metre high steel tower. The DNF to find ratio is currently 27:29 but some of the finders mention getting hints from the CO or past finders. Lots of strings of DNFs and not an OM in sight in the 18 months it's been there, yet the cache is fine and is still being found by those up to the challenge (and with lots of time to spare). Why should this be a problem? Or does everything have to be reduced to a 1.5/1.5 P&G?

[+colleda]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Consider GC4ZAZH, a D5 traditional that's the quintessential needle in a haystack, a (presumably) magnetic micro somewhere on a 40 metre high steel tower. The DNF to find ratio is currently 27:29 but some of the finders mention getting hints from the CO or past finders. Lots of strings of DNFs and not an OM in sight in the 18 months it's been there, yet the cache is fine and is still being found by those up to the challenge (and with lots of time to spare). Why should this be a problem? Or does everything have to be reduced to a 1.5/1.5 P&G?

And knowing this one, which I've yet to attempt, there would be a lot of unlogged DNFsl.

[+colleda]

8 hours ago, jellis said:

Been over this a many times. Some post DNFs when they should be Notes, like  too many muggles, or they look at a DNF on a previous post and decide it's not there so they post a DNF.

I do my best to check most of mine but sometimes it seems a little much if they are still there.

How do you decide to do a NM or NA when the cache is evil?

Here are two of mine. Do I need to go back every time a DNF is posted?

http://coord.info/GC1WFJF

https://coord.info/GC170JW

I have one 

GC4AXPC

similar to those yet it's disappeared 3 times so far. It will get a few DNFs the some finds. Due to its history I'll usually check after a couple of DNFs as its not far from home so therefore not incovenient. No  one has ever logged a NM.

[+CAVinoGal]

I'm new to cache ownership.  New to the CHS.  New to all the nuances of logging DNF's, NM's, etc - trying to figure out how to make my own logs most effective for everyone - fellow cachers, and the game as a whole.

So, I have a cache I placed in June 2017.  PMO.  It's had 10 finds in it's (a bit less than) 4 month existence.  No DNF's.  Today I dropped 2 trackables there, adding to the 1 other in it's stated inventory (which I verified was also there).  Left all the pretty decent swag that was there, and logged my trackable drops.  

Should I have logged an OM as well?  (I realize just by reading through this thread I'll probably get both yea and nay answers). So maybe a better question is - Will an OM now improve my CHS?  Have no effect?  Does anyone really know?  I, personally, don't feel I need to log an OM - there was no maintenance needed at all but I did have the container in my hand, opened it up and went through the contents, verified the trackable inventory, and went throught he "swag".  Is that maintenance?  The last find prior to my visit today was on 9/10/17.

If I ever get a DNF on this one I will know there is an issue and be out there to check it pronto...it's well hidden from muggles but obvious to geocachers with the correct coordinates.  Is there any need, or any point, to logging an OM for my visit today?

[+jellis]

11 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

As they currently stand I'd say no to both.  One has two dnfs from the same person the other has two dnfs on the same day from two relatively inexperienced cachers.   Although both caches are a 3 difficulty or less it looks as if all actually searched for the caches but just didn't find them.

On one of them you had 6 straight dnfs in the span of 3 months or so from some pretty experienced cachers.  I'm surprised one of them didn't post a NM.  It would have been justified even though the cache was still there.  

 From what I see it appears your a cacher with a good maintenance record.  I'd say your handling things just fine.

Have you received a maintenance notice from GS?  

Not that I remember. One of the two listed here had a NA (deleted) by some Charter Member but not experienced in difficult hides. I drove out there and I didn't even have to get out of my car to see it was still there. I should have left the NA on it just to prove even long time cachers can miss an "in plain sight" evil cache.

[+jellis]

4 hours ago, colleda said:

I have one 

GC4AXPC

similar to those yet it's disappeared 3 times so far. It will get a few DNFs the some finds. Due to its history I'll usually check after a couple of DNFs as its not far from home so therefore not incovenient. No  one has ever logged a NM.

Both of mine mentioned are in plain sight. One I think I posted a photo on the forum a long time ago. So far both of mine I mentioned have never gone missing. I have had to replace logsheets. One I did have someone put a throwdown on it just because they couldn't find it.

[+jellis]

23 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I'm new to cache ownership.  New to the CHS.  New to all the nuances of logging DNF's, NM's, etc - trying to figure out how to make my own logs most effective for everyone - fellow cachers, and the game as a whole.

So, I have a cache I placed in June 2017.  PMO.  It's had 10 finds in it's (a bit less than) 4 month existence.  No DNF's.  Today I dropped 2 trackables there, adding to the 1 other in it's stated inventory (which I verified was also there).  Left all the pretty decent swag that was there, and logged my trackable drops.  

Should I have logged an OM as well?  (I realize just by reading through this thread I'll probably get both yea and nay answers). So maybe a better question is - Will an OM now improve my CHS?  Have no effect?  Does anyone really know?  I, personally, don't feel I need to log an OM - there was no maintenance needed at all but I did have the container in my hand, opened it up and went through the contents, verified the trackable inventory, and went throught he "swag".  Is that maintenance?  The last find prior to my visit today was on 9/10/17.

If I ever get a DNF on this one I will know there is an issue and be out there to check it pronto...it's well hidden from muggles but obvious to geocachers with the correct coordinates.  Is there any need, or any point, to logging an OM for my visit today?

You could log an OM just to confirm you checked it even though there is not DNFs.

[anpefi]

3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I'm new to cache ownership.  New to the CHS.  New to all the nuances of logging DNF's, NM's, etc - trying to figure out how to make my own logs most effective for everyone - fellow cachers, and the game as a whole.

So, I have a cache I placed in June 2017.  PMO.  It's had 10 finds in it's (a bit less than) 4 month existence.  No DNF's.  Today I dropped 2 trackables there, adding to the 1 other in it's stated inventory (which I verified was also there).  Left all the pretty decent swag that was there, and logged my trackable drops.  

Should I have logged an OM as well?  (I realize just by reading through this thread I'll probably get both yea and nay answers). So maybe a better question is - Will an OM now improve my CHS?  Have no effect?  Does anyone really know?  I, personally, don't feel I need to log an OM - there was no maintenance needed at all but I did have the container in my hand, opened it up and went through the contents, verified the trackable inventory, and went throught he "swag".  Is that maintenance?  The last find prior to my visit today was on 9/10/17.

If I ever get a DNF on this one I will know there is an issue and be out there to check it pronto...it's well hidden from muggles but obvious to geocachers with the correct coordinates.  Is there any need, or any point, to logging an OM for my visit today?

Can you confirm that after your visit the cache is in optimal conditions to be searched, found and signed? If the answer is yes you have maintained and you are legitimated to log it as such.
Maybe in English (which is not my first or second language) is not so, but for me "doing maintenance" does not necessarily imply having to fix something, if not check if something is ok and give it the okay if it is or fix it if not. So any visit of a owner in which the cache is in good condition after that visit is a maintenance visit, although no action was required. Logging it as OM or not is up to you. If you do it, then the message you are sending to others is "Hey, the cache is Ok!". In your case, does OM logging benefit the CHS from the cache? Probably not*, but it will always be good for others to know that the cache has been recently checked.

 

* Perhaps one of the factors affecting CHS could be the time since the last owner visit. If it is, I do not think it would be quite important in relation to DNFs or NMs, but who knows? In that case, logging a OM in a clear cache (w/o DNFs/NM/NA) could result in a slight improvement of its CHS.

[+thebruce0]

10 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

So, I have a cache I placed in June 2017.  PMO.  It's had 10 finds in it's (a bit less than) 4 month existence.  No DNF's.  Today I dropped 2 trackables there, adding to the 1 other in it's stated inventory (which I verified was also there).  Left all the pretty decent swag that was there, and logged my trackable drops.  

Should I have logged an OM as well?  (I realize just by reading through this thread I'll probably get both yea and nay answers). So maybe a better question is - Will an OM now improve my CHS?  Have no effect?  Does anyone really know?  I, personally, don't feel I need to log an OM - there was no maintenance needed at all but I did have the container in my hand, opened it up and went through the contents, verified the trackable inventory, and went throught he "swag".  Is that maintenance?

It's an interesting question. I think in this case it really is up to you. For the purposes of verifying its findability, I wouldn't log an OM because prior logs indicate it's just fine (10 finds within 4 months isn't much of a concern), so an OM log to confirm it's ok seem (to me) redundant. But for the purposes of checking and restocking, whether with swag or trackables, you could log an OM or just post a Note; I think either would be fine. In this particular case, I'd probably just post a note with what I did.

As for CHS, yeah, who knows. You're relatively new, so there may not be any low CHS to 'fix'. But maybe the OM adds a positive bonus towards being an active owner. We don't know.  If you have any concern about that, I don't see the problem in logging an OM.  This may be an example case where the CHS does indeed impact what would otherwise be negligible log posting decisions, without any evidence that it actually has an effect... =/

[+niraD]

13 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Does anyone really know?

Groundspeak knows, but they are naturally reluctant to provide specific details. Everyone else is just guessing.

 

9 hours ago, anpefi said:

Maybe in English (which is not my first or second language) is not so, but for me "doing maintenance" does not necessarily imply having to fix something, if not check if something is ok and give it the okay if it is or fix it if not.

Sometimes just looking at something can be considered maintenance. My mechanic does routine vehicle inspections. Those inspections don't actually fix anything; they're just looking at the vehicle's condition to see what might need to be fixed. But they're part of maintenance.

But other times, just looking at something is just looking. It isn't maintenance. Did I lock the vehicle? Did I bring all the groceries in? When does my parking pass expire? None of that's maintenance. It's just looking.

Edited October 20, 2017 by niraD
fix attribution

[+CAVinoGal]

13 hours ago, jellis said:

You could log an OM just to confirm you checked it even though there is not DNFs.

10 hours ago, anpefi said:

So any visit of a owner in which the cache is in good condition after that visit is a maintenance visit, although no action was required. Logging it as OM or not is up to you.

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think in this case it really is up to you... I wouldn't log an OM because prior logs indicate it's just fine (10 finds within 4 months isn't much of a concern), so an OM log to confirm it's ok seem (to me) redundant. But for the purposes of checking and restocking, whether with swag or trackables, you could log an OM or just post a Note; I think either would be fine. In this particular case, I'd probably just post a note with what I did.

Thanks for all the feedback.  I've been thinking about this, and with this cache and 2 others in the vicinity (the other two I just did a quick check, and both are good) I am going to go ahead and log the OM.  They were all 3 in the mandatory evacuation zone for the Atlas Fire last week, although the fire never got as far as the cache locations.  The wineries nearby were all closed all last week and reopened only recently.  So an OM will ensure that anyone checking will know these particular ones are still in play.

[+coachstahly]

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So let me get this straight. In this new age CHS-dominated caching world, not only shouldn't we log a DNF unless we're pretty sure the cache is missing, we shouldn't log an NM if we'd like the CO to check on it either. Sigh.

Log the DNF to indicate that you didn't find it.  I have no problem with that whatsoever, regardless of the rating.  I've DNFed my fair share of easy (1/1, 1.5/1.5) caches, only to have the next cacher find it and log something to the extent that it was an easy find.  The issue I take with the "justification" argument is that  in THIS specific cache example, the CO appears to be diligent and the cache has never gone missing (magnet fell off once?).  Taken all together, I don't think a NM log would be justified because every time it's been right there, per the COs post here as well as the logs on the cache page.

I'm not against NM logs.  They certainly have their place and, used when needed, hasten the demise of a cache with an absent owner, hasten the demise of a cache with a maintenance shirking owner, or get the cache fixed up at some point.  

I also realize that a NM in this particular situation doesn't really matter that much because the CO can easily clear it.  I just think, in this case, it's a bit heavy handed to log a NM, just to get CO verification that it's still there, like it has been every time the CO has checked on it.