Demonising the DNF

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Another is that the cache is not missing, but was simply not found.  As a cache owner, one can be very diligent about maintaining their caches, going out almost daily to confirm the cache is in place and does not need maintenance but that's will not prevent DNFs on a cache simply because someone couldn't find it.  Here are a few things that I CO could do to prevent or at least keep DNF logs at a minimum:

Only place caches that are very easy to find.

Only place caches close to home where one can spend as little time as possible walking from a vehicle to the cache.

Give explicit spoiler hints regarding the location (with pictures and arrows) of the cache, which makes it very easy to find.

Allow throw downs on the cache so nobody every has to post a DNF.

Allow people the log the cache as found even when they didn't find the cache.

None of those things are particularly good for the game (though providing useful hints doesn't really hurt), yet I'm concerned that's the direction some will take rather than going out  on almost a daily basis to check on their geocaches.

Or one check up on their cache like every good cache owner has done since the beginning of time,  post their owners maintenance Log and move on to the next thing.

 

 

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In that case those people shouldn't be posting a dnf .

That's one interpretation of the situation. I personally think it's more productive for the CHS to change to accommodate the way people really post logs, than to expect everyone to change the way they post logs to accommodate the CHS.

7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That may help solve some of the problem.

Depending on what you think "the problem" really is, of course.

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Or one check up on their cache like every good cache owner has done since the beginning of time,  post their owners maintenance Log and move on to the next thing.

Only if you define "good cache owner" as someone who rushes off to check on their caches whenever a DNF is logged. Some of us think that it can be perfectly reasonable for even good cache owners to ignore DNF logs at times.

[+justintim1999]

I don't really think there is a problem.   I do think posting a dnf only when you've reached gz and searched would help those who do.  

[+niraD]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

A good owner would look at "multiple" dnf's and want to check up on their cache.  They wouldn't feel like they had to because of an e-mail.  

Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on factors other than the mere fact that the DNF log type was used multiple times.

[+justintim1999]

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

Only if you define "good cache owner" as someone who rushes off to check on their caches whenever a DNF is logged. Some of us think that it can be perfectly reasonable for even good cache owners to ignore DNF logs at times.

A good owner would look at "multiple" dnf's and want to check up on their cache.  They wouldn't feel like they had to because of an e-mail.  

[+justintim1999]

26 minutes ago, niraD said:

Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on factors other than the mere fact that the DNF log type was used multiple times.

No maybe about it.  Every good cache owner would want to check up on their cache if they even thought there was a problem.   Now I know there are certain situations that make this hard to do but that doesn't negate the fact that if they could,  they would.    Let's not  destroy the CHS and demonize dnf's  because of a small number of caches that seem to fall into a grey area that I'm sure is getting brighter every day.  

[+barefootjeff]

36 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on factors other than the mere fact that the DNF log type was used multiple times.

No maybe about it.  Every good cache owner would want to check up on their cache if they even thought there was a problem.   Now I know there are certain situations that make this hard to do but that doesn't negate the fact that if they could,  they would.    Let's not  destroy the CHS and demonize dnf's  because of a small number of caches that seem to fall into a grey area that I'm sure is getting brighter every day.

Would you dash off and check on your cache if someone logged a DNF saying "there were a group of muggles gass-bagging right next to GZ and looked like they wouldn't be moving on any time soon so I'll have to come back another day"? Or if they said the batteries in their GPSr died, or if it was a "flashlight required" cache and they didn't bring one, or any of the other host of reasons people give when logging DNFs?

I know you think people should only log DNF if they've spent hours searching every possible nook and cranny and are pretty sure the cache is missing, but the reality is that people log DNFs for all sorts of reasons and that list expands even further for higher D/T caches. What about the DNFs I've logged when I've done the 10km hike, climbed the mountain and could see the cache tucked out under a ledge but wasn't game to climb out to reach it? Do they require a CO visit? Or isn't that a "valid" DNF?

And what about the higher difficulty caches that are expected to get lots of DNFs? That D3 I found the other week has on average one DNF for every 1.8 finds and quite often gets strings of 3, 4 or more DNFs in a row. The CO would be wearing a geotrail into the rock if they went to check on that one each time it got a DNF.

DNFs aren't all created equal, they don't all mean the cache might be missing and they don't all require a response from the CO.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Every good cache owner would want to check up on their cache if they even thought there was a problem.

Sure. But the owner thinking there is a problem and the cache receiving DNF logs aren't necessarily the same thing.

Some of my favorites are high-difficulty well-camouflaged hidden-in-plain-sight caches that regularly receive DNF logs. (They also regularly receive Find logs that refer to multiple previous attempts, even though no DNF logs were posted.) These DNF logs are normal and expected for these caches, and are not a sign of any problem.

Similar nothing-really-wrong DNF logs are seen on high-terrain caches. And of course, high-difficulty, high-terrain caches see them too.

I know you like to dismiss these caches as "a grey area that I'm sure is getting brighter every day", but not all of us are willing to sacrifice these gems just because the CHS helps weed out the 1/1 caches that are in trouble.

[+justintim1999]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Would you dash off and check on your cache if someone logged a DNF saying "there were a group of muggles gass-bagging right next to GZ and looked like they wouldn't be moving on any time soon so I'll have to come back another day"? Or if they said the batteries in their GPSr died, or if it was a "flashlight required" cache and they didn't bring one, or any of the other host of reasons people give when logging DNFs?

I know you think people should only log DNF if they've spent hours searching every possible nook and cranny and are pretty sure the cache is missing, but the reality is that people log DNFs for all sorts of reasons and that list expands even further for higher D/T caches. What about the DNFs I've logged when I've done the 10km hike, climbed the mountain and could see the cache tucked out under a ledge but wasn't game to climb out to reach it? Do they require a CO visit? Or isn't that a "valid" DNF?

And what about the higher difficulty caches that are expected to get lots of DNFs? That D3 I found the other week has on average one DNF for every 1.8 finds and quite often gets strings of 3, 4 or more DNFs in a row. The CO would be wearing a geotrail into the rock if they went to check on that one each time it got a DNF.

DNFs aren't all created equal, they don't all mean the cache might be missing and they don't all require a response from the CO.

If I thought there was something wrong with one of my caches I'd check up on it regardless of how many dnf's it had. .  It's as simple as that. 

I think people should only post a dnf after they've reached ground zero and searched.  Sometimes a search can last 2 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. The key is that the cache was actually searched for, at GZ. 

If you can see the cache and for what ever reason can't retrieve it than it's a note.  Can't be a dnf because it's not missing, you found it you just can't retrieve it.   Can't be a find because you didn't sign the log.  What else could it be? 

The high difficulty, high terrain caches are what most of the opposition here is really about and I sympathize.  If you own one,  you’re in a tough spot although I think GS is continuously working to improve the CHS. 

If someone posts a dnf it should only mean one of two things. The cache is there and they simply didn't find it.  They didn't find it because the cache is missing.   I understand the first scenario is more likely but caches do go missing.  

 

 

[+justintim1999]

12 hours ago, niraD said:

Sure. But the owner thinking there is a problem and the cache receiving DNF logs aren't necessarily the same thing.

Some of my favorites are high-difficulty well-camouflaged hidden-in-plain-sight caches that regularly receive DNF logs. (They also regularly receive Find logs that refer to multiple previous attempts, even though no DNF logs were posted.) These DNF logs are normal and expected for these caches, and are not a sign of any problem.

Similar nothing-really-wrong DNF logs are seen on high-terrain caches. And of course, high-difficulty, high-terrain caches see them too.

I know you like to dismiss these caches as "a grey area that I'm sure is getting brighter every day", but not all of us are willing to sacrifice these gems just because the CHS helps weed out the 1/1 caches that are in trouble.

They are only a grey area in terms of the CHS.  No one is asking you to sacrifice those caches,  only hang in there and work with your reviewer until the CHS is able to better handle them.  I have a hard time understanding how a simple e-mail could cause such an uproar considering what the CHS is designed to do.  The "Grab the pitchforks at the first sign of trouble" mentality dosn't make sense to be. 

   

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

15 hours ago, niraD said:

Only if you define "good cache owner" as someone who rushes off to check on their caches whenever a DNF is logged. Some of us think that it can be perfectly reasonable for even good cache owners to ignore DNF logs at times.

A good owner would look at "multiple" dnf's and want to check up on their cache.  They wouldn't feel like they had to because of an e-mail.  

This I agree with.  However, a good cache owner has no control over the weather, the number people near that cache when someone searches for it, or the relative finding skills of those that find it. All of those things can result in multiple DNFs and no amount of maintenance is going to change that.  

[+justintim1999]

10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This I agree with.  However, a good cache owner has no control over the weather, the number people near that cache when someone searches for it, or the relative finding skills of those that find it. All of those things can result in multiple DNFs and no amount of maintenance is going to change that.  

True and I'm sure GS has taken that into consideration and is addressing it as we speak.   Problem here is we have clear examples of how the CHS has failed but nothing much about how it has succedded.   When GS decides to release the stats on the CHS I think a lot of people are going to re-think some of their positions.  
 

Edited October 13, 2017 by justintim1999

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If I thought there was something wrong with one of my caches I'd check up on it regardless of how many dnf's it had. .  It's as simple as that. 

That's the rub. And that can happen with or without any number of DNFs. So the issue isn't about DNF logs, it's about CO judgement of their own cache's activity. DNFs can be an indicator, but not a guarantee (as I'm sure we all here agree upon); and the more DNFs without a find, the more likely the possibility of an issue. Still not a guarantee. But a safe condition to include in an algorithm that weighs many many factors in determining the potential for an issue needed attention.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think people should...

Which only goes so far as your thoughts, no matter how ideal or good-willed you believe your thoughts to be, it won't be reality as reality demonstrates activity far from your/our ideal thoughts.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If someone posts a dnf it should only mean one of two things. The cache is there and they simply didn't find it.  They didn't find it because the cache is missing.   I understand the first scenario is more likely but caches do go missing.  

You'd think those would be the only two options, but in reality there are many many more nuanced conditions you're not taking into consideration, especially as it pertains to how the algorithm interprets individual DNF logs and their context.

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This I agree with.  However, a good cache owner has no control over the weather, the number people near that cache when someone searches for it, or the relative finding skills of those that find it. All of those things can result in multiple DNFs and no amount of maintenance is going to change that

Exactly. Thus it's CO judgement that determines whether a cache does need to be checked on (whether by new logs or reception of the email). And usually a reviewer's opinion will agree with the judgement of a good cache owner, or could be swayed if there's a good defense revealing things the reviewer didn't know. But if a reviewer still requires an action, a CO really has no choice, whether they believe themselves to be a good owner or not.

The email is not a human. But a reviewer can easily judge how a CO responds to the situation raised by the email.

 

Cache gets lots of DNFs from a group that fails to find an easy cache on a visit, and the reason is gleaned from log content by the CO, who

then ignores the email, which brings it to the attention of the reviewer - CO could easily explain why maintenance wasn't necessary. Easy thing to do? Post the OM explaining certainty the cache is fine; but even so, while the reviewer might understand the CO's non-checkup, they'd likely still recommend the OM log anyway for the sake of the CHS (perhaps even still get to a physical visit at some point to be sure).  I can see this circumstance happening fairly often (at least in my area)

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I have a hard time understanding how a simple e-mail could cause such an uproar considering what the CHS is designed to do.

This I agree with
Though I'm quite sympathetic with the concern of it also being used to "reward", knowing that it can easily produce false positives.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Problem here is we have clear examples of how the CHS has failed but nothing much about how it has succedded.

Kind of like how the forum fills with complaints after a web update, and little to no thanks or praise from people who continue using it without issue and/or really do like the changes. Negatives always outweigh the positives, unfortunately.

[+hzoi]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

DNFs aren't all created equal, they don't all mean the cache might be missing and they don't all require a response from the CO.

While we're talking about things that aren't required, a single robot email from Groundspeak that (1) has been  repeatedly explained and (2) was triggered by a system that has been adjusted based on feedback do not require continual rants. 

Let it go, man.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I have a hard time understanding how a simple e-mail could cause such an uproar

Apparently the email gives some owners the impression that their only options are to visit the cache location now, disable the listing now and visit the cache location later, or archive the listing. Personally, I think it would help a lot of they added a simple statement like this:

"If you believe you have received this email in error, then please help us improve the automated CHS system by reporting the situation via the Contact Us page at the Help Center."

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can see the cache and for what ever reason can't retrieve it than it's a note.  Can't be a dnf because it's not missing, you found it you just can't retrieve it.   Can't be a find because you didn't sign the log.  What else could it be? 

If someone posts a dnf it should only mean one of two things. The cache is there and they simply didn't find it.  They didn't find it because the cache is missing.   I understand the first scenario is more likely but caches do go missing.

So which is it? Can DNFs only be logged if the cache is missing, or can they be logged if the cache is definitely there but the find can't be completed for whatever reason? Why does a DNF require the cache to either be missing or presumed missing?

In the context of this game, a find requires locating the cache, retrieving it, opening the container and signing the logbook. Anything short of that isn't a find, and if it's not a find, surely a DNF is appropriate to log.

Edited October 13, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, hzoi said:

While we're talking about things that aren't required, a single robot email from Groundspeak that (1) has been  repeatedly explained and (2) was triggered by a system that has been adjusted based on feedback do not require continual rants. 

Let it go, man.

Please, this isn't about me, okay? It's about a broken system. The only reason this thread got woken up again a few weeks ago (and not by me, I must add) was because the CHS is continuing to ping perfectly good caches with just one or two DNFs logged on them. Anyway, this thread wasn't meant to be about the CHS, it's about giving meaning to DNFs that was never intended by the logger, and the transition of DNF from simply an informative log ("I didn't find it today") to an action-required log.

Edit to add: And the Help Centre page that started this thread which says to log an NA if you can't find a cache and there are several DNFs on the cache page with no owner response is still there. Am I the only one who thinks that's unreasonable?

Edited October 13, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

41 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Am I the only one who thinks that's unreasonable?

For a 1/1 cache, or for a 4/1 cache?

Of course, the Help Center article doesn't qualify the advice.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Am I the only one who thinks that's unreasonable?

For a 1/1 cache, or for a 4/1 cache?

Of course, the Help Center article doesn't qualify the advice.

Well for any cache. Just because there's more than one DNF on the cache page (it doesn't even say they have to be consecutive or the most recent logs) without a response from the owner surely doesn't mean it needs archiving.

[+niraD]

43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well for any cache. Just because there's more than one DNF on the cache page (it doesn't even say they have to be consecutive or the most recent logs) without a response from the owner surely doesn't mean it needs archiving.

Good point. Even a 1/1 can have "several DNFs" spread out over the life of the cache without it really indicating that there is any problem.

[+dprovan]

35 minutes ago, niraD said:

For a 1/1 cache, or for a 4/1 cache?

Of course, the Help Center article doesn't qualify the advice.

The help center article says you should file an NA based entirely on DNFs -- it says DNFs or NMs, not DNFs and NMs -- so, no, that's not reasonable regardless of the cache's ratings. The first step should always be to post an NM to point out the implication of the DNFs to the CO without getting a reviewer involved. You may think the CO should have noticed, but that doesn't make it reasonable to cut him out of the procedure because you don't think he did notice.

[+Gill & Tony]

Several months ago I DNFed a cache.  Since then it has had a string of DNFs but no NMs.  A week or so ago  I posted an NA explaining the situation and pointing out that the CO had not cached for over a year.  I was advised by the reviewer that this was improper because there had been no NMs.  He posted an NM and advised me to repost the NA if the CO had not replied within a month.

So it looks like an NM is required before an NA.

[+Team DEMP]

4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Several months ago I DNFed a cache.  Since then it has had a string of DNFs but no NMs.  A week or so ago  I posted an NA explaining the situation and pointing out that the CO had not cached for over a year.  I was advised by the reviewer that this was improper because there had been no NMs.  He posted an NM and advised me to repost the NA if the CO had not replied within a month.

So it looks like an NM is required before an NA.

 NM is probably not required though some reviewers might prefer the sequence. I would normally post a NM first myself, add it to my watchlist, and follow up in a month or 2 with a NA. The reason a NA isn't the final step is, reviewers posts a Temp Unavailable and give the CO another month or so to resolve it for it is really archived. If they aren't going to resolve in 1 month or comment even if they can't get out there, a NM or Temp Unavailable won't make a difference. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Team DEMP
extra word removed

[+justintim1999]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

Good point. Even a 1/1 can have "several DNFs" spread out over the life of the cache without it really indicating that there is any problem.

If the cache owner is making "ocasional visits" than over time those dnf would be nulified.  

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If the cache owner is making "ocasional visits" than over time those dnf would be nulified.  

Assuming they're posting OM logs, perhaps. But if there hasn't been any recent DNF, and everything is fine with the cache, a lot of owners probably wouldn't bother posting anything. Or maybe they'd post a note.

[+NanCycle]

7 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

 NM is probably not required though some reviewers might prefer the sequence. I would normally post a NM first myself, add it to my watchlist, and follow up in a month or 2 with a NA. The reason a NA isn't the final step is, reviewers posts a Temp Unavailable and give the CO another month or so to resolve it for it is really archived. If they aren't going to resolve in 1 month or comment even if they can't get out there, a NM or Temp Unavailable won't make a difference. 

I also would normally post a NM first--UNLESS the CO had not found a cache OR visited the website in over a year.  The times I have gone straight to NA, the reviewer has not told me that was improper; well, not yet anyway.  

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Several months ago I DNFed a cache.  Since then it has had a string of DNFs but no NMs.  A week or so ago  I posted an NA explaining the situation and pointing out that the CO had not cached for over a year.  I was advised by the reviewer that this was improper because there had been no NMs.  He posted an NM and advised me to repost the NA if the CO had not replied within a month.

So it looks like an NM is required before an NA.

I agree you should have posted an NM, but this is the first time I've heard of a reviewer insisting on it.

The fact that the CO has not cached lately is irrelevant. COs don't need to cache in order to maintain their caches. You post the NM in this case because you don't know what the CO will do until you ask him. Posting an NA implies you're reasonably sure the CO won't perform required maintenance, but you can't say that in this case.

[+Gill & Tony]

28 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I agree you should have posted an NM, but this is the first time I've heard of a reviewer insisting on it.

The fact that the CO has not cached lately is irrelevant. COs don't need to cache in order to maintain their caches. You post the NM in this case because you don't know what the CO will do until you ask him. Posting an NA implies you're reasonably sure the CO won't perform required maintenance, but you can't say that in this case.

I post an NA to ask a reviewer to look at the situation.  I comment on the CO's history as information for the reviewer.

Personally I would prefer the log name to be changed to something which suggests a reviewer needs to be involved, rather than something which implies that the CO is negligent.  

Edited October 14, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Several months ago I DNFed a cache.  Since then it has had a string of DNFs but no NMs.  A week or so ago  I posted an NA explaining the situation and pointing out that the CO had not cached for over a year.  I was advised by the reviewer that this was improper because there had been no NMs.  He posted an NM and advised me to repost the NA if the CO had not replied within a month.

So it looks like an NM is required before an NA.

59 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I post an NA to ask a reviewer to look at the situation.  I comment on the CO's history as information for the reviewer.

Personally I would prefer the log name to be changed to something which suggests a reviewer needs to be involved, rather than something which implies that the CO is negligent.  

I'm with the Reviewer that there's stages leading to an archival. For me, one is NM after a string of DNFs (and I didn't find it either). 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd think now that we have a "health score" on caches, a NM after a string of DNFs may be the "attention" that gets the ball rolling without the need to involve a Reviewer immediately.  We've never had the desire in this hobby to "keep track" after an action.  If we did, the "super fun" and "nice day" logs the day after our NM  on a cache that's soaked would be a new "Irk" for a thread here. 

Agree with the idea  that Needs Archived could be replaced with Needs Attention/Involvement/Action, though knowing what it's replacing, either change probably might have the same meaning to all but new folks.   

 

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I post an NA to ask a reviewer to look at the situation.  I comment on the CO's history as information for the reviewer.

I understand what you were doing. I'm saying you were doing the wrong thing. It is inappropriate to get the reviewer involved before you've brought it up to the CO. And, as I said, the CO's history has no bearing on whether or not he gets a chance to respond before you call down the authorities on his cache.

9 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Personally I would prefer the log name to be changed to something which suggests a reviewer needs to be involved, rather than something which implies that the CO is negligent.  

I don't understand. Your description seemed to make it clear you thought the cache needed to be archived. Why would you want the log type to say something else? Now as I've said, what you should have said is that the cache should be fixed which is what an NM would say, but given that you jumped to the conclusion that it will never be fixed so there's no reason to ask for it to be fixed, the least you can do is stand by your decision. Once the reviewer is involved, he only has the one option, so it's disingenuous to pretend there isn't a direct cause and effect relation between you getting the reviewer involved and the cache being archived.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 1:58 PM, niraD said:

Assuming they're posting OM logs, perhaps. But if there hasn't been any recent DNF, and everything is fine with the cache, a lot of owners probably wouldn't bother posting anything. Or maybe they'd post a note.

Shouldn't we, as owners, be posting OM logs every time we visit one of our caches?   I think part of the reason the CHS exists is because cachers are not consistently posting the proper logs.     

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Shouldn't we, as owners, be posting OM logs every time we visit one of our caches?   I think part of the reason the CHS exists is because cachers are not consistently posting the proper logs.     

Curious (as I haven't decided what OS I want this time),  isn't there still a limit on how many logs show on phones?

I have caches (ammo cans) that are lucky to see people access twice a year.  My logs would outnumber all others if I did an OM each time in the area (one is a third now).

 Not much help for others looking to glean info from others.  

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious (as I haven't decided what OS I want this time),  isn't there still a limit on how many logs show on phones?

I have caches (ammo cans) that are lucky to see people access twice a year.  My logs would outnumber all others if I did an OM each time in the area (one is a third now).

 Not much help for others looking to glean info from others.  

If your cache is only getting found twice a year than one OM log should be fine.    The majority of caches out there get found much more frequently than that so multiple OM logs shouldn't muddy up the page too much.   Besides, as a cache finder, what better log to see right off the bat than a recent OML?  

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Shouldn't we, as owners, be posting OM logs every time we visit one of our caches?

The guidelines say only "Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance", not "Post an Owner Maintenance log every time you visit one of your caches."

[+thebruce0]

Although, owner maintenance includes being responsible for your listing. So what does "owner maintenance" completely entail?  If reviewing logs and 'cleaning up' false logs is maintenance, would that mean posting an OM with an explanation?    Maintenance doesn't always mean "fixing something". It can also mean verifying the integrity and (maintaining) findability of the cache (physically and online).

I think the owner needs to use their discretion about the OM log. If you fix something, definitely. If you check it to make sure it's good (checking online logs or physically visiting), it's now more prudent I would say, to log an OM, even if nothing gets fixed. Because CHS. =/

Edited October 17, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

The guidelines say only "Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance", not "Post an Owner Maintenance log every time you visit one of your caches."

 

Have you ever visited your cache (occasional visit) and not opened it up to check it out?   If the answers is no than your doing maintenance and should indicate that in an OML.

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Have you ever visited your cache (occasional visit) and not opened it up to check it out?

Yes.

[+niraD]

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the owner needs to use their discretion about the OM log. If you fix something, definitely. If you check it to make sure it's good (checking online logs or physically visiting), it's now more prudent I would say, to log an OM, even if nothing gets fixed. Because CHS. =/

Meh... I still think CHS needs to accomodate the way people really post logs, rather than the other way around.

I know they're reviled by many, but front-yard caches (including Little Free Library caches) would be flooded with useless OM logs if the owners posted OM logs every time they walked by. And then there are the more remote caches described by cerberus1, where the OM logs could easily outnumber the logs from seekers.

I post OM logs when I have something to say, when I've done something I think seekers should know about.

[+cerberus1]

21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Have you ever visited your cache (occasional visit) and not opened it up to check it out?  

One of mine I can see from the road.  I pass by it at least once a week.  I can tell if it's moved the slightest bit.  There's no need for me to "open" the ammo can to check it out if no one's been there in-between maintenance.

[+justintim1999]

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

One of mine I can see from the road.  I pass by it at least once a week.  I can tell if it's moved the slightest bit.  There's no need for me to "open" the ammo can to check it out if no one's been there in-between maintenance.

How about the other ones?   

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the owner needs to use their discretion about the OM log. If you fix something, definitely. If you check it to make sure it's good (checking online logs or physically visiting), it's now more prudent I would say, to log an OM, even if nothing gets fixed. Because CHS. =/

Meh... I still think CHS needs to accomodate the way people really post logs, rather than the other way around.

I know they're reviled by many, but front-yard caches (including Little Free Library caches) would be flooded with useless OM logs if the owners posted OM logs every time they walked by. And then there are the more remote caches described by cerberus1, where the OM logs could easily outnumber the logs from seekers.

I post OM logs when I have something to say, when I've done something I think seekers should know about.

Oh I agree, that's why (see bold)   OM logs on a front porch cache is an extreme case, and certainly I'd wonder about the cache if the CO posted an OM log every time they walked by =P  But, if there are recurring DNFs on it, or it's rarely found, but it's always good to go, it would be prudent for the CO to post OMs occasionally to show it's still findable against the inevitable CHS drop; assuming of course they don't up the D. heh

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious (as I haven't decided what OS I want this time),  isn't there still a limit on how many logs show on phones?

I have caches (ammo cans) that are lucky to see people access twice a year.  My logs would outnumber all others if I did an OM each time in the area (one is a third now).

 Not much help for others looking to glean info from others.  

Naturally there are exceptions, and yours could be one. But right off the bat, I'm thinking your OMs from 4, 8, and 12 months ago would all be more important for me to see than a DNF from two years ago. But if you don't think so, I'd still say your OM from 4 months ago is much more important than your OMs from 8 or 12 months ago, so if you're afraid of filling up the logs slots in someone's pocket query, you should delete the old ones instead of withholding the new one.

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

One of mine I can see from the road.  I pass by it at least once a week.  I can tell if it's moved the slightest bit.  There's no need for me to "open" the ammo can to check it out if no one's been there in-between maintenance.

24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

How about the other ones?   

Another I check to be sure the attachment remains a non-issue to a tree every time I'm in the area (maybe twice a month). 

Two large LNLs inside a rural mailbox.   I don't climb to open it either.  How often is your mail soaked? 

 

[+dprovan]

59 minutes ago, niraD said:

The guidelines say only "Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance", not "Post an Owner Maintenance log every time you visit one of your caches."

If I don't know the state of my cache, when I visit it to see if it's OK, I think that clearly counts as maintenance by most definitions.

Certainly OMs can be excessive. As you well know -- it's why you brought it up -- your little library example is silly on the face of it. But if you want to talk definitions, then I claim the person with the little library knows full well that there's unlikely to be any change day-to-day, so the fact that they casually look at the cache site wouldn't count as an act of maintenance.

Besides, the point isn't to force COs to post OMs for every visit, rain or shine. The point is that if you visit your cache to check on it, it makes sense to post an OM. Certainly if you don't think it adds any information, you shouldn't bother. I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't like that people think there's some rule about only posting an OM when you physically do something. The log is Owner Maintenance, not Owner Fixed It.

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Another I check to be sure the attachment remains a non-issue to a tree every time I'm in the area (maybe twice a month). 

Two large LNLs inside a rural mailbox.   I don't climb to open it either.  How often is your mail soaked? 

 

Although I wouldn't expect you to log an OML twice a month with no obvious maintenance concerns I do think your maintaining your cache just by checking up on it even if no "traditional" maintenance was needed.    

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yes.

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?     

[+niraD]

11 minutes 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.

[+justintim1999]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

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.

I see that as maintaining your cache.   If I had to choose between more OM logs less OM logs I vote for the former.   Why would we advocate for less maintenance?   Let's shoot for overkill and settle for adequate.

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I see that as maintaining your cache.   If I had to choose between more OM logs less OM logs I vote for the former.   Why would we advocate for less maintenance?   Let's shoot for overkill and settle for adequate.

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.