Jump to content

Demonising the DNF


Followers 9

Recommended Posts

Again, not every cache listing with 2 DNFs has received a notification email. DNFs are not to be villified/demonized!  They are a useful tool to owners and cachers, which may also indicate a potential problem, and thus are taken into consideration along with numerous other factors in order to determine if a nudge email should be sent. That's it.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd love to see an example of a reviewer archival only and solely because of DNFs. That means, no questionable and/or irresponsible actions or communications on the CO's part, no previous problems unaddressed, and everything about the physical cache and the listing are in good order.

And even then, it was a human who archived the cache, because they judged that it warranted archival. And Groundspeak will (generally) stand by their reviewers' judgement unless it can be specifically demonstrated as unwarranted.

The CHS in that supposed case wasn't the cause of the archival, nor were the DNF logs.  A human reviewer was.

Of course as I'm not a reviewer I can't know if there was other conversation, but here is an example where from the reviewers log, the disabling seems to be because of DNFs.  I don't know if a Health Score email was sent.   Obviously the CO didn't respond to the reviewer's request, so that was the reason for the archive.   But the reviewers action to disable the cache seems triggered by DNFs.  I've seen quite a few others like this. 

https://coord.info/GC6JGBG

I know the health emails intend to go beyond just NM and NA.   I suppose I really think they are unnecessary.    

Link to comment
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So  your saying that dnfs have no bearing on the cache's condition and should be ignored completely?

 

DNF = problem is not entirely a false notion.   

Yes it is. Absolutely yes it is. 

 

DNFs do NOT equal a problem with a cache. Simply put. I fail to find caches on a regular basis that are being found by others. Caches that are in perfect condition. 

 

DNF may possibly be a singular indicator, but the suggestion that they EQUAL (as in, definitely mean there is) a problem with the cache is simply not true. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

DNF may possibly be a singular indicator, but the suggestion that they EQUAL (as in, definitely mean there is) a problem with the cache is simply not true. 

 

No one here has said such a thing, that I can recall.

 

 

46 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Of course as I'm not a reviewer I can't know if there was other conversation, but here is an example where from the reviewers log, the disabling seems to be because of DNFs.  I don't know if a Health Score email was sent.   Obviously the CO didn't respond to the reviewer's request, so that was the reason for the archive.   But the reviewers action to disable the cache seems triggered by DNFs.  I've seen quite a few others like this. 

https://coord.info/GC6JGBG

I know the health emails intend to go beyond just NM and NA.   I suppose I really think they are unnecessary.    

 

Last find: 2016-05-28, DNFs each month until 2016-08-20 when a reviewer felt it warranted disabling. Reviewer may have seen "maybe this needs checking", and "spotted the obvious host and our GPS wasn't doing anything weird but we couldn't find", and with 3 months and 4 DNFs felt it worth nudging the CO to check on it. Maybe the reviewer also wanted to ensure the CO was active. Turns out the reviewer's judgement was not inaccurate.   The archival was not because of DNFs. The disabling was not because of DNFs. The score was affected by DNFs, amongst any number of other factors most likely related to the CO's past activity and responsiveness. The reviewer made a judgement, and the CO was shown to have shirked their responsibility to be responsive, and the cache was archived 3 months after being disabled.

 

Sorry, I can't blame the CHS for that one, nor 4 irrelevant DNFs, which they weren't. The CHS indicated a potential problem, affected by posted DNF logs; the reviewer judged the DNF logs as indicating a problem (plus whatever else affected the judgement call), and it was all verified over a looooong period until it was rightly archived, IMO.

 

Even so, this may have just been a reviewer doing a proactive scanning caches - no indication that it was actually the cache's health score that prompted the disabling. This instance could have occurred 6 or 10 years ago, in exactly the same way it occurred here.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, narcissa said:

 

This isn't relevant to me. I don't know when or if I have triggered the email and it isn't my place to counsel other geocachers to ignore missives from Groundspeak.

 

Social justice warrior? There is no need for this nasty, political name-calling in a thread about geocaching. I am quite certain the world won't stop turning just because my DNFs are going away. I am assured by several others in the forum that I had no business writing DNFs at all anyway because they are only to be used when a cache is missing.

Very untrue.   I can't think of a single person in this forum who has suggested never using DNF's.   In fact most have encouraged you to continue using dnf's but have suggested you consider using them in a slightly different way.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I said "almost". And it was in reference to taking action by "being offended" on the behest of someone else, in this case, no one who has specifically come out as actually being offended at getting a notification email because of DNFs to the point of wishing the DNFs hadn't been posted.

So just keep posting your DNFs as they are relevant to you, as you always have.

If you believe some person has told you that your DNFs are not wanted (rather, that YOU shouldn't post them) because they don't like why you post them, then why listen to them when the vast majority of everyone else finds value in relevant DNFs - whether for the CO or the cacher? Seriously, again, it's overkill to withhold every DNF you would ever want to post just because you think someone might get triggered by receiving an innocuous email they can (even if they don't know it yet) simply ignore if there is no actual problem.

 

 

 

Yes, as do I.

And one step further, I agree that the algorithm can always be improved. That's the nature of the algorithm. Its flexibility for adjustment as more experience rolls in.

 

 

 

 

They're not sent on DNFs alone (as far as we understand the algorithm, which has not been described to us in great detail except that it takes factors into consideration to determine whether or not a notification email of a potential problem may be warranted).

 

 

 

 

Irrelevant. The system cannot possibly know if 2 DNFs indicates a problem or not. And so the email does just that - indicates that there may be a problem.

Clearly it doesn't do that for every single cache worldwide with 2 consecutive DNFs, so there must be other factors at play in the algorithm. Amount of time between finds? Ratio of Finds to DNFs? Responsiveness of the CO to previous NM/NA logs? Who knows. The point is that the algorithm felt that, in the cases where it's sent an email, there was enough evidence to warrant a notification of a potential problem, even if it's a false positive.  If it is, then ignore it.  Or, take the extra step *gasp* of posting a note or OM confirming that everything's fine. If it actually is.

 

 

 

 

And so that has nothing to do with this notification system which was enacted to help with the period of time before potential problems ever get placed in front of a human face. A NM that's unaddressed IS a problem, and a reviewer will - should - be addressing it at some point if the CO doesn't. That's not what the notification system was built to address. It's out of its scope. It's a different problem, and irrelevant to the CHS outside of possibly affecting the score as it pertains to the CO's responsiveness to actual reported problems.  If a reviewer doesn't eventually take care of caches that are clearly not being maintained, that's a problem with the local reviewer (because clearly it's a problem with the cache's CO which is also not being addressed - not the notification email).

 

 

 

 

And they should keep on doing so! That is a good community ethic. If the community does it. And once the NM is posted, it's out of the CHS notification email's hands, because now it's reported as an actual problem which the CO will have to actively fix, or intentionally confirm as not a problem, in order to avert any consequential reviewer attention.  The score - while the reviewer can use it to judge whether action is necessary in cases of non-proactive community, is NOT an indicator that there IS a problem.

 

Another way to look at it is like the email being a response to activity as if the glass is half full (or, there might be a problem, but you're innocent until proven guilty - it does not itself require reviewer attention).

A NM log is like the glass if half empty (or, a problem is reported which might be incorrect, but you're guilty until proven innocent - in time it will directly require reviewer attention).

 

 

 

 

To which I say, as I've consistently said, an adjustment to the wording of the email would be wonderful to help assuage any inferred misconceptions; but whether or not that happens, this is such a minor point of education - just let people know just how actually innocent the email is!  If there's a problem, deal with it. If there isn't, then forget you ever got it, if you don't want to be bothered with posting a note confirming there's no problem (which is not even a requirement).

 

I see no majority or consensus of opinion here. On one hand I am being chided for changing my logging process to something that alleviates my personal distaste with the new system. On the other hand I am being chided for the way I logged DNFs to begin with. Since I'm going to be personally criticized either way, I may as well go with my gut instinct on this. I don't like the new system and I don't wish to contribute to it. I am not asking anyone else to change what they are doing, so this nonsense about me being any kind of warrior is completely needless. We are all just trying to make sense of things and keep up with the moving goalposts. I don't think everyone will land on the same conclusions and processes. There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mvhayes1982 said:

Yes it is. Absolutely yes it is. 

 

DNFs do NOT equal a problem with a cache. Simply put. I fail to find caches on a regular basis that are being found by others. Caches that are in perfect condition. 

 

DNF may possibly be a singular indicator, but the suggestion that they EQUAL (as in, definitely mean there is) a problem with the cache is simply not true. 

DNF = Problem could be true.  

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, narcissa said:

 

I see no majority or consensus of opinion here. On one hand I am being chided for changing my logging process to something that alleviates my personal distaste with the new system. On the other hand I am being chided for the way I logged DNFs to begin with. Since I'm going to be personally criticized either way, I may as well go with my gut instinct on this. I don't like the new system and I don't wish to contribute to it. I am not asking anyone else to change what they are doing, so this nonsense about me being any kind of warrior is completely needless. We are all just trying to make sense of things and keep up with the moving goalposts. I don't think everyone will land on the same conclusions and processes. There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best.

 

1. You're being chided for withholding potentailly valuable information from community and owners simply because you think someone won't like getting a notification email based on the faulty assumption that merely posting a DNF will cause them to receive one.  Posting a DNF will not cause a CO to receive a notificatoin email. It will be considered, to some arbitrary degree, towards determining a cache health, which may or may not trigger an email that helpfully alerts the owner to a potential problem with a cache, compounded by any number of issues. And it's an email that can be ignored.

2. IF you are in fact being chided, then chide people who say you're using DNFs wrong. It's your opinion against theirs, when there is no strict rule for how you are to use DNFs. They are helpful when relevant. Use them relevantly.

3. Your gut instant is extreme. Do not give in to it.  Take people's understanding of DNFs into consideration, adjust your usage if you must, but please do not withhold every single DNF from public display, especially if it's relevant to the public's interests!

4. You may not be asking anyone else to change how they do things, but your change does affect other people and can affect decisions and experiences around attempting to find caches or deciding to maintain them. Use them relevantly.

5. "There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best."  (minor pet peeve: when someone says someone is "acting like" something, that's not calling a person such a thing, it's a call to more thoughtfully consider what a person is doing) Again, your response (no longer posting any DNFs), I'm saying, is hurting other people more than it's helping other people. It's hurting other people because you are wilfully holding useful information back from other cachers and owners merely because you don't want theoreticaly owners to be offended by receiving an innocuous email because you logged a DNF. There's so much misunderstanding in that thought process, and it's been described repeatedly and clearly in this thread.

 

Finally, please, just keep logging your DNFs if they are relevant and informational, as if the CHS doesn't even exist! If that means adjusting content or reducing logs or increasing logs, then that's fine - but if you legitimately cannot find a cache and that would prompt you to log a DNF -- don't hold it back on principal! please.

Also, more usage of anything that the CHS considers means a better pool of activity from which the devs and better hone the algorithm.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Side note: Looking back, I will apologize for using the sjw reference - I was wary of making use of it, hesitating, knowing it could be seen quite controversially, but I went ahead anyway, hoping that the surrounding context would lighten the sentiment; I was wrong, and I could have made that point without the touchy rhetoric.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Wasn't part of the reason Groundspeak came up with this whole system the fact people weren't posting NM's and NA's?

I hope people not posting NMs and NAs wasn't a problem Groundspeak was trying to solve since implementing an automated system of detecting problems further discourages people from posting NMs and NAs.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

1. You're being chided for withholding potentailly valuable information from community and owners simply because you think someone won't like getting a notification email based on the faulty assumption that merely posting a DNF will cause them to receive one.  Posting a DNF will not cause a CO to receive a notificatoin email. It will be considered, to some arbitrary degree, towards determining a cache health, which may or may not trigger an email that helpfully alerts the owner to a potential problem with a cache, compounded by any number of issues. And it's an email that can be ignored.

2. IF you are in fact being chided, then chide people who say you're using DNFs wrong. It's your opinion against theirs, when there is no strict rule for how you are to use DNFs. They are helpful when relevant. Use them relevantly.

3. Your gut instant is extreme. Do not give in to it.  Take people's understanding of DNFs into consideration, adjust your usage if you must, but please do not withhold every single DNF from public display, especially if it's relevant to the public's interests!

4. You may not be asking anyone else to change how they do things, but your change does affect other people and can affect decisions and experiences around attempting to find caches or deciding to maintain them. Use them relevantly.

5. "There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best."  (minor pet peeve: when someone says someone is "acting like" something, that's not calling a person such a thing, it's a call to more thoughtfully consider what a person is doing) Again, your response (no longer posting any DNFs), I'm saying, is hurting other people more than it's helping other people. It's hurting other people because you are wilfully holding useful information back from other cachers and owners merely because you don't want theoreticaly owners to be offended by receiving an innocuous email because you logged a DNF. There's so much misunderstanding in that thought process, and it's been described repeatedly and clearly in this thread.

 

Finally, please, just keep logging your DNFs if they are relevant and informational, as if the CHS doesn't even exist! If that means adjusting content or reducing logs or increasing logs, then that's fine - but if you legitimately cannot find a cache and that would prompt you to log a DNF -- don't hold it back on principal! please.

Also, more usage of anything that the CHS considers means a better pool of activity from which the devs and better hone the algorithm.

There's that "legitimately" word again. I am not going to complicate things by trying to categorize my cache attempts as potentially relevant / legitimate or not. That's too much work and I won't get it right anyway.

If DNFs are important for the content, then Groundspeak shouldn't treat them in a manner that makes the content irrelevant.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I hope people not posting NMs and NAs wasn't a problem Groundspeak was trying to solve since implementing an automated system of detecting problems further discourages people from posting NMs and NAs.

The reason given in the Help Center Article is:

Geocaching is more fun when caches are available to find. To help improve the overall caching experience, Geocaching HQ created an algorithm to calculate a hidden Health Score for each geocache.

From that, I read that their main focus is on missing caches.    Hence DNFs (which indicate possible missing caches) need to be addressed.

I see the logic.   

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sometimes they have been.

Read it again:

"Groundspeak shouldn't treat them in a manner that makes the content irrelevant."

"They aren't."

 

DNFs still have relevant content. The CHS being unable to "comprehend" the text content of a DNF log in ascertaining potential problems doesn't mean they are making DNF content irrelevant.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I hope people not posting NMs and NAs wasn't a problem Groundspeak was trying to solve since implementing an automated system of detecting problems further discourages people from posting NMs and NAs.

 

Or it reinforces the idea that NMs and NAs used appropriately are a good thing and that the behaviour of those cachers who insult and berate those people who use NM's and NA's appropriately is inappropriate and unwelcome and through this encourages more people to use  NM's and NA's  rather than being afraid of vitriol and abuse.

 

It might even overturn the idea that I've seen promoted on these forums that in not posting NM's and NA's cachers get what they deserve or the crazy idea that not posting NM's and NA's is an active vote for junky caches.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The system cannot possibly know if 2 DNFs indicates a problem or not. And so the email does just that - indicates that there may be a problem.

Clearly it doesn't do that for every single cache worldwide with 2 consecutive DNFs, so there must be other factors at play in the algorithm. Amount of time between finds? Ratio of Finds to DNFs? Responsiveness of the CO to previous NM/NA logs? Who knows. The point is that the algorithm felt that, in the cases where it's sent an email, there was enough evidence to warrant a notification of a potential problem, even if it's a false positive.

One DNF on a seven-week-old cache with one previous find and no other history. The CO has never received an NM or NA on any of his hides. Where's the evidence that was compelling enough in this case to send the email? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's just picking caches at random and sending the email if the last log was a DNF.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"out of scope" is in reference to WHY the email is sent; intent, not cause. Previous NM can affect the score, yes, and they should, as with numerous other factors which I said. Perhaps if a NM is still outstanding, an email may still be sent. Who knows. But it's out of scope in that once the NM is posted, the cache has moved into a different phase: The CO MUST address the issue, or it WILL get reviewer attention.

That might be true in some places but it's not universal. Around here the reviewers don't take action on outstanding NMs, they only step in when someone logs an NA or if a cache has been left disabled for too long. I was under the impression that was how the system was meant to work in the first place - a reviewer publishes the cache and then it's in the hands of the CO and the community until someone logs an NA. An automated email nudging COs about outstanding NMs would be far more useful than one that's trying to infer meaning from DNF logs that simply isn't there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

One DNF on a seven-week-old cache with one previous find and no other history. The CO has never received an NM or NA on any of his hides. Where's the evidence that was compelling enough in this case to send the email? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's just picking caches at random and sending the email if the last log was a DNF.

 

I would be.

I would suggest you talk to the reviewer to find out exactly why they decided to take action rather than simply jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst. I don't see it that way. So at worst you have a differing opinion about the turn of events; still not proof in any way of the point you're trying to make. And even then, the CHS didn't cause anything perceived as negative. The reviewer did, because they decided to take action.  If the reviewer's actions were wrong, then it's the reviewer's responsibility. The DNFs and the Email did nothing to cause the reviewer's actions.

 

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

That might be true in some places but it's not universal. Around here the reviewers don't take action on outstanding NMs, they only step in when someone logs an NA or if a cache has been left disabled for too long. I was under the impression that was how the system was meant to work in the first place - a reviewer publishes the cache and then it's in the hands of the CO and the community until someone logs an NA. An automated email nudging COs about outstanding NMs would be far more useful than one that's trying to infer meaning from DNF logs that simply isn't there.

 

Around here, the reviewers are the "nag email" when it comes to NM logs. If a cache has a flag on it for an extended time, a reviewer will disable. If a cache is disabled for an extended time, the reviewer will either warn, or archive.  The email is a pre-reviewer nudge.

Perhaps your reviewers don't feel the need to take action against untended caches with a NM on it yet. If so, then great, you've got a relatively good community and/or well-kept landscape of caches.

 

Groundspeak clearly felt that universally, implementing a nudge system to keep owners alerted to potential problems was warranted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I would be.

I would suggest you talk to the reviewer to find out exactly why they decided to take action rather than simply jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst. I don't see it that way. So at worst you have a differing opinion about the turn of events; still not proof in any way of the point you're trying to make. And even then, the CHS didn't cause anything perceived as negative. The reviewer did, because they decided to take action.  If the reviewer's actions were wrong, then it's the reviewer's responsibility. The DNFs and the Email did nothing to cause the reviewer's actions.

 

Since you're saying the algorithm must have had evidence beyond the one DNF that there was likely to be a problem with that cache, over and above all the others with one or more DNF logs that it didn't ping that day, I'd like to know what that "additional evidence" might possibly have been. No previous history on the cache, in fact the finder prior to the DNF awarded it an FP. No previous history with the CO, either with NM/NA logs or any disputes with reviewers. This would have to be about the least likely cache with a DNF log to be in need of special attention, yet it was singled out by the algorithm. And it got it totally wrong: the cache wasn't missing, the coordinates weren't bad, the difficulty rating wasn't wrong, the DNFer was just looking in the wrong place because of encroaching muggles.

 

From what redsox_mark has said, this wasn't an isolated incident, there are still COs just as baffled as to why their caches, with only a couple of DNFs, are being singled out by it. DNF logs alone are a very poor measure of cache health, especially when the CO is still active in the game and is in a far better position than any algorithm to judge when a cache needs a maintenance visit, while sending emails to absent owners is a waste of an email.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

DNF logs alone are a very poor measure of cache health, especially when the CO is still active in the game and is in a far better position than any algorithm to judge when a cache needs a maintenance visit

Just to elaborate on what I mean by this, looking across the hides of some of the active COs around here, only a tiny percentage of DNF logs are due to a missing cache and, when they are, are attended to by the CO without any prompting from reviewers or algorithms. Some examples:

 

CO A: 9 hides, 14 DNFs, 1 due to missing cache, CO responded without intervention.

CO B: 3 hides, 5 DNFs, none due to missing cache.

CO C: 30 hides, 48 DNFs, none due to missing cache.

CO D: 13 hides, 15 DNFs, 2 due to missing cache or waypoint, CO responded without intervention.

 

Where a CO is long gone and their abandoned hides eventually go missing, then yes, there'll typically be some DNFs, then usually someone will log an NM and ultimately an NA. But as I said, sending an algorithm-generated email in this instance is unlikely to achieve anything.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One DNF on a seven-week-old cache with one previous find and no other history. The CO has never received an NM or NA on any of his hides. Where's the evidence that was compelling enough in this case to send the email? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's just picking caches at random and sending the email if the last log was a DNF.

 

I would be.

Look at what we know. Very few people have received the email, either amongst forum regulars or in other online or social caching groups, yet for the ones that have, the scenario that triggered the email was usually nothing extraordinary - just one or a few DNFs and nothing else. We all know of far worse caches that aren't being pinged. Either there's something decidedly odd about the criterion being used, or, more likely, the part of the algorithm that generates emails only looks at a very small random sample of caches at any one time. Of course we'll never know, but it's about the only thing that makes much sense to me.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

They aren't.

 

If that was true, then there wouldn't be endless threads discussing the false positive issue. The system only sees DNF and is incapable of determining context.

 

I write DNFs largely for my own benefit as a record of unsuccessful attempts, and yet the forum assures me that I have no business posting DNFs unless I believe a cache is missing. That means that it is nearly impossible for me to qualify to log a DNF by the standards repeatedly underscored by other forum users, since I would never presume a cache to be missing just because I didn't find it.

 

Since I don't want to cause hassle for cache owners by triggering the email, and since the forum assures me that I was using DNFs incorrectly anyway, I see no point in logging them.

 

The new logging system also seems to be designed to discourage detail in logs in general, so I think I should take the hint.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, narcissa said:

 

If that was true, then there wouldn't be endless threads discussing the false positive issue. The system only sees DNF and is incapable of determining context.

 

I write DNFs largely for my own benefit as a record of unsuccessful attempts, and yet the forum assures me that I have no business posting DNFs unless I believe a cache is missing. That means that it is nearly impossible for me to qualify to log a DNF by the standards repeatedly underscored by other forum users, since I would never presume a cache to be missing just because I didn't find it.

 

Since I don't want to cause hassle for cache owners by triggering the email, and since the forum assures me that I was using DNFs incorrectly anyway, I see no point in logging them.

 

The new logging system also seems to be designed to discourage detail in logs in general, so I think I should take the hint.

While I realize that there are several folks in here who have tried to assert that a DNF [only =] missing cache, there are a few of us, myself included, who have encouraged you to log DNFs whenever YOU want to log your DNFs. If by YOUR definition you conducted a search (whether that occurred at GZ, sitting in the car in the parking lot, somewhere in between, or somewhere even before) then by all means, please log a DNF. 

This is a 13 page thread, which is in my mind, much ado about nothing. I've attempted to persuade you to simply enjoy this hobby in the way that is best for you (which, full disclosure, I believe to also be the way that is best for the community). Apparently it is a good thing that I passed on law school, as my ability to make a persuasive argument seems to have slipped. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, narcissa said:

 

If that was true, then there wouldn't be endless threads discussing the false positive issue. The system only sees DNF and is incapable of determining context.

 

I write DNFs largely for my own benefit as a record of unsuccessful attempts, and yet the forum assures me that I have no business posting DNFs unless I believe a cache is missing. That means that it is nearly impossible for me to qualify to log a DNF by the standards repeatedly underscored by other forum users, since I would never presume a cache to be missing just because I didn't find it.

 

Since I don't want to cause hassle for cache owners by triggering the email, and since the forum assures me that I was using DNFs incorrectly anyway, I see no point in logging them.

 

The new logging system also seems to be designed to discourage detail in logs in general, so I think I should take the hint.

 

Narcissa, i've been reading your posts for a while now. We've agreed on many topics and we've had a few disagreements as well. One thing for certain is that you've always stood your ground when participating in a debate. The majority of cachers know darn well that DNF doesn't automatically mean a cache has a problem or is missing. You're in this majority so i'm just surprised to see you letting a couple or three forum posters influence you this way.

 

I suppose one of your DNF logs could cause grief for a CO but the circumstances would have to be just right. I figure the thin skin of that particular CO would be the main contributing factor. :P

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

...while sending emails to absent owners is a waste of an email.

Unless of course the lack of response to that email from the absent CO serves as further supporting evidence that the local reviewer can go ahead and archive that cache on the basis it isn't going to be maintained.

If the reviewer could also extend the use of that supporting evidence to all the CO's caches that would be good too :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I give up on this.

I look back and I actually start laughing, because really this particular issue is so unbelievably tiny, microscopically insignificant in the grand scheme of all things.
It's an emailEvery instance of something (supposedly) 'bad' happening to a cache has either ended up being justified, or a legitimate error on the human reviewer part (and I have not yet even seen evidence of this, only words and claims and opinions, even though that latter is beside the point and I couldn't really care less if a reviewer made an errant judgement - the reviewer is to blame, not any DNF).

This is another thread populated by the same old people doing the same old roundabout argumentation raising the same roundabout points made repeatedly in the same thread with opinions so rooted in subjectivity that if the facts aren't enough to change minds, nothing will.

Do what you want. Log how you want. Let your opinions give you angst, even if they don't have to. Whatev.
Go geocaching and have fun, because that's what it's all about. Preferably with friends you enjoy spending time with, and without the nagging of a thread's activity on the internet in the back of your mind where "someone is wrong".

I may only get a little bit of caching this weekend. I've got other things stacking up I need to get working on, plus something much more important to me to enjoy.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Narcissa, i've been reading your posts for a while now. We've agreed on many topics and we've had a few disagreements as well. One thing for certain is that you've always stood your ground when participating in a debate. The majority of cachers know darn well that DNF doesn't automatically mean a cache has a problem or is missing. You're in this majority so i'm just surprised to see you letting a couple or three forum posters influence you this way.

 

I suppose one of your DNF logs could cause grief for a CO but the circumstances would have to be just right. I figure the thin skin of that particular CO would be the main contributing factor. :P

 

I am not sure why your perception of our past interaction is supposed to be relevant as I don't really bother to differentiate between individual forum users.

 

My main concern is the nag email, which, to me, is very problematic. The forum's insistence on denigrating those who take exception to it is not interesting or persuasive.

 

There have always been forum users with silly ideas about the way people should user certain logs. Unfortunately, now, those silly ideas are being reinforced by Groundspeak's recent site changes.

 

I have spent years trying to be patient with the TFTC people, the power trail people, and the number hound people, i the belief that there was value in letting the game expand and change. I could keep playing my way, which included the relatively benign practice of logging DNFs quite liberally.

 

Now those logs are being used against others in a way that I find very upsetting. There is no getting around that for me. You forum people can be as dismissive and insulting as you like, but calling me names won't change my valid perception of the email. I see there is now a thread devoted to re-writing it, so surely my perception is not complete lunacy if some others are similarly dismayed by the email.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I give up on this.

I look back and I actually start laughing, because really this particular issue is so unbelievably tiny, microscopically insignificant in the grand scheme of all things.
It's an email

I've been using the internet long enough to remember when email started to be somewhat common and not just something used by a handful of early technical pioneers.  With that growth came the notion of UCE or "unsolicited commercial email".  There were many that spoke against the use for email by companies to send out unsolicited email messages for their commercial gain.  There were also many that said "it's just an email message". Just ignore it.  I think it's pretty obvious how that strategy worked out.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I look back and I actually start laughing, because really this particular issue is so unbelievably tiny, microscopically insignificant in the grand scheme of all things.
It's an email.

If it's as insignificant as you say it is, then it not important enough to do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think the content of the DNF log makes it useful. If I look and cannot find the cache, I write the reason ("Only had a few minutes to search", " sun was setting so we'll have to come back another time", ect). These DNF logs are useful to the cache owner. As a CO, when I see a DNF from someone with 5 finds that reads "Cache is gone", I don't put much stock in it.   

Link to comment

This topic came up locally AND regionally late last week.  Multiple cachers, who maintain their caches, received emails after subsequent DNFs were posted.  In some cases, notes were posted when it was checked on, rather than OM logs, but cache was verified as in place by the CO.  Another CO, who has lots of hides but does timely maintenance, also received one.  His was based on a single DNF (after being found the day before the DNF)  A fellow friend from the state next door got one as well due to 2 DNFs (same time) by new cachers.  Another friend had a new hide that was found and then DNFed by 2 cachers (caching together).  An acquaintance received one as well and another friend from a state on the other side got one too, all of them after just one or two DNFs (except for the one posted below, which had multiple DNFs but notes verifying in place as well as a 3 D hide).

8 members from a group on FB also received multiple emails from Groundspeak about checking on their cache due to DNFs.  Many were after 1-2 DNFs and many of them were higher D hides. One of them had 3 DNFs and was then found but an email was still sent.

Our reviewer told us to post a OM log for EVERY check we do on it in order to offset the nag email as well as to "restore" the health score.

https://coord.info/GC3762B

 

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

This topic came up locally AND regionally late last week.  Multiple cachers, who maintain their caches, received emails after subsequent DNFs were posted.  In some cases, notes were posted when it was checked on, rather than OM logs, but cache was verified as in place by the CO.  Another CO, who has lots of hides but does timely maintenance, also received one.  His was based on a single DNF (after being found the day before the DNF)  A fellow friend from the state next door got one as well due to 2 DNFs (same time) by new cachers.  Another friend had a new hide that was found and then DNFed by 2 cachers (caching together).  An acquaintance received one as well and another friend from a state on the other side got one too, all of them after just one or two DNFs (except for the one posted below, which had multiple DNFs but notes verifying in place as well as a 3 D hide).

8 members from a group on FB also received multiple emails from Groundspeak about checking on their cache due to DNFs.  Many were after 1-2 DNFs and many of them were higher D hides. One of them had 3 DNFs and was then found but an email was still sent.

Our reviewer told us to post a OM log for EVERY check we do on it in order to offset the nag email as well as to "restore" the health score.

https://coord.info/GC3762B

 

 

Same here (Southern England).

What one of our reviewers has told us is that the score is cumulative over time.   So for example.. let's say there were several DNFs on a cache.     Then there was a find.    Then, another DNF.   While we don't know the algorithm,  we know DNFs can reduce the score, finds can improve it.     We've seen several recent cases where a single DNF (following a find before that) triggered the email.   However, there were some other DNFs in the past, before the find(s).    In other words, a find doesn't cancel out a history of past DNFs.    

We don't know how much an OM impacts the score (does it restore it completely?), but yes our reviewer also advised that we do an OM whenever we check the cache, and this will help the health score.   Some owners were checking caches but only logging OM if they changed something.   If everything was fine they logged a note.   

Link to comment

I'd say, what the reviewer was true. However, that's putting a bandaid on it. We know the algorithm can be tweaked, so I'd suggest people who received the email also contact Groundspeak to (respectfully and reasonably) inform them of the situation - they may either let them know what triggered the email in their case, or having been informed of a 'false negative' send it over the CHS team to adjust the algorithm (this is best outcome), or of course say nothing (yet may or may not pass said info to the CHS team).

So instead of ranting about demonising the DNF, understand that they admitted it's possible for false negatives, and that they do adjust the algorithm when they are informed of 'errors', and help them improve the algorithm (in those cases, of course, where it actually is a false negative).

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Up thread I already expressed that I think this mechanism is wrong headed, and this is just one example of why.

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Our reviewer told us to post a OM log for EVERY check we do on it in order to offset the nag email as well as to "restore" the health score.

But on the other hand, I think it's always a good idea to post an OM log when you do OM, and checking on a cache to confirm it's there is OM. It's obnoxious that your reviewer considers this a fix for this entire class of strategic algorithm failures, but, nevertheless, I agree with the advice for reasons unrelated to the health score.

Link to comment

The consensus amongst most of the posters is that this is annoying rather than beneficial, although most understand that an OM log is now the way to go.  It will be interesting to see if anyone else receives one in a similar situation moving forward.

5 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

What one of our reviewers has told us is that the score is cumulative over time.   So for example.. let's say there were several DNFs on a cache.     Then there was a find.    Then, another DNF.   While we don't know the algorithm,  we know DNFs can reduce the score, finds can improve it.     We've seen several recent cases where a single DNF (following a find before that) triggered the email.   However, there were some other DNFs in the past, before the find(s).    In other words, a find doesn't cancel out a history of past DNFs.    

 

That doesn't make sense, then, for my friend's brand new cache that was found and then DNFed by two newer cachers.  There IS no history.

Edited by coachstahly
Spelling
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

although most understand that an OM log is now the way to go

I don't think anything has changed? For many years it has been the tool for an owner to report that they checked and maintained their cache.

I wonder why the owners you spoke to weren't using the OM log?

This new health score might increase the proper use of the OM rather then Write Note.

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
Quote

That doesn't make sense, then, for my friend's brand new cache that was found and then DNFed by two newer cachers.  There IS not history.

I wonder if the Cache Health Score is somehow using Percentage of DNFs as an indicator.  In many cases this could be a good indicator, but on a new cache that receives a find and then 2 DNFs, the percentage would be very skewed.  It seems that a number of the issues with false positives have to do with DNFs early in the caches history, so such a percentage problem could help explain it.  But that's nothing that can't be tweaked as long as HQ is getting feedback.

Edited by m0bean
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, m0bean said:

I wonder if the Cache Health Score is somehow using Percentage of DNFs as an indicator.  In many cases this could be a good indicator, but on a new cache that receives a find and then 2 DNFs, the percentage would be very skewed.  It seems that a number of the issues with false positives have to do with DNFs early in the caches history, so such a percentage problem could help explain it.  But that's nothing that can't be tweaked as long as HQ is getting feedback.

I'm not a statistician but I reckon that DNF percentage skew on a new cache is quite appropriate on the basis that a newly placed cache with very early DNF's is quite likely to need attention.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

The consensus amongst most of the posters is that this is annoying rather than beneficial, although most understand that an OM log is now the way to go.  It will be interesting to see if anyone else receives one in a similar situation moving forward.

That doesn't make sense, then, for my friend's brand new cache that was found and then DNFed by two newer cachers.  There IS not history.

None of us know the algorithm, though I trust my reviewer knows a bit.   Sure, a new cache can trigger a low health score with just a few DNFs.    The point about history is, if a cache had a history with some DNFs, so that it's score was on the borderline, then just one DNF (combined with that history) could be enough to push it over the edge to get an email.        So in that way, history (if it is there), impacts the score.   

So the example I saw- the CO thought everything was fine as the last couple logs were finds.   Then came a single DNF, and immediately a health email.     What it seems he didn't know was that, in spite of those finds, that his cache was still borderline for an health email because of earlier history.    (And no OM log).

   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't think anything has changed? For many years it has been the tool for an owner to report that they checked and maintained their cache.

I wonder why the owners you spoke to weren't using the OM log?

This new health score might increase the proper use of the OM rather then Write Note.

 

Because a note used to suffice to indicate that it had been checked on as no maintenance, other than a visual verification, was performed.  With the advent of the CHS, it appears OMs are now going to be standard procedure rather than posting notes, even though a visual verification isn't maintenance (at least in my book).  I change out the log, clean up the cache, replace the container with a new one, change out swag, etc..., I view those as maintenance; a visual verification to someone asking (or not asking)- not so much. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 9
×
×
  • Create New...