Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
barefootjeff

Demonising the DNF

1055 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

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.

Given this additional information, I think the OM log is definitely in order.

0

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
23 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.

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that, pre-CHS, a DNF was just an informational log (I didn't find it today) with no consequences, and an NM was just a request for the CO to check on the cache. If you wanted to involve a reviewer, you logged an NA. Now, it seems, DNFs are the maintenance request and NMs are the start of the archival process, so everything's moved along one notch. Is that really a good thing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
16 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?

To me, this is a no-brainer: you opened the cache and confirmed everything about it is in good working order. That's Owner Maintenance. The only reason not to file an OM is if you just recently filed an earlier OM: that would make a second OM redundant since both you and everyone else already know it was in good shape before you went to drop of these TBs.

I could care less how it affects your cache's health score.

1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that, pre-CHS, a DNF was just an informational log (I didn't find it today) with no consequences, and an NM was just a request for the CO to check on the cache. If you wanted to involve a reviewer, you logged an NA. Now, it seems, DNFs are the maintenance request and NMs are the start of the archival process, so everything's moved along one notch. Is that really a good thing?

No, it's a terrible thing. I think the log types are well chosen to help humans communicate with each other, and I'm sad to see them perverted by a drive to replace human interaction with robotic oversight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NanCycle said:
6 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

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.

Given this additional information, I think the OM log is definitely in order.

Done.

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

To me, this is a no-brainer: you opened the cache and confirmed everything about it is in good working order. That's Owner Maintenance. The only reason not to file an OM is if you just recently filed an earlier OM: that would make a second OM redundant since both you and everyone else already know it was in good shape before you went to drop of these TBs.

I could care less how it affects your cache's health score.

It may or may not affect the CHS - and it really doesn't matter to me, I was just curious.  And wondering about the best way to log what I did.  In the case of the cache I added trackables to - it was considered owner maintenance because I opened the container, verified contents, and added stuff.  The other 2, I simply verified they were still in place, but due to the circumstances locally (the Atlas Fire aftermath) I did log OM's on both of those as well.

I realize this is off-topic to this thread, but I do thank you all for your input, and helping to train this newbie!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9