Jump to content

Abandoned


cachychris

Recommended Posts

POP QUIZ...

In prepping for a breakfast GC Event this morning, we checked out the area (some distance from home) to see if there were any GCs worth pursuing afterward.  One of those found was: GC2QNXR

Log Summary:

  • Problems First Noted: 6/19/2015 (No "NM" logged--No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • Seven more "Found" Logs (8/27/15 -- 9/3/16), Six of which mention problems requiring attention.
  • CO Last Visited: 10/15/2016.
  • Two more "Found" Logs (11/13/16), One of which comes back & logs "NM".
  • First "NM" Logged: 11/26/2016 (No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • 2 More "Found" Logs.
  • Second "NM" Logged: 6/11/2017 (No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • Another "Found" Log: 7/14/2017.

As of This Posting (9/17/17), No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken--in 27 Months.

I'm considering logging "NA", even though I've never actually attempted finding this cache, which brings up another question related to the OP....

Back to hypotheticals.... Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

 

Edited by RufusClupea
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RufusClupea said:

Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

I have done that once, in a similar situation to the one you described. I was checking out caches to search for on journey. One of them was clearly missing and had several NMs on it but no action from the CO. Within a day of me submitting the NA the CO temp disabled it  and said they would sort it out. It stayed temp disabled for several months until a reviewer asked what  was happening to it, and then the CO archived it. But having said all that it's not an action I would took lightly and I wouldn't like to see it become common practice.

 

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

2. Your message I was replying to mentioned putting logs in a bag to keep them dry, therefore most likely a leaky container is involved.

And plastic bags aren't really weatherproof after more than a couple open–close cycles. I've come to the conclusion that it's better to use a weatherproof container, or admit that the contents are going to get wet and use a weatherproof log. Plastic bags just help things stay wet so they can get funky faster.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

If you do this properly there is no need to write NM emergency call after you have fixed the problem. Instead of adding cash receipt with your name on it, you could add an entire sheet of paper folded into its own bag to keep it dry. Of course, you do this only when you want to preserve the cache to the delight of other seekers.

This is excellent guidance - I'm going to apply this rule to every junky, abandoned cache that I come across in future.

I will pause, take a deep breath and ask myself this question:

Is this cache a delight to find?

If the answer is no I'll conclude that it probably won't be a delight for anyone else either and I'll post an appropriate log - NM or NA.

Of course there'll probably be people who respond in a patronising manner that the cache, no matter how awful it is or how long it's been abandoned for, is sacrosanct and that people like me who think otherwise should be, at the very least, tarred and feathered but you know what? Meh. I'll sleep better at night knowing that I'm not contributing to the race to the bottom where we all walk around with a pocket cache in perfect condition so that we can log a find wherever we may be.

Edited by Team Microdot
missed a word out! bah!
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, RufusClupea said:

I'm considering logging "NA", even though I've never actually attempted finding this cache, which brings up another question related to the OP....

Back to hypotheticals.... Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

I have done so in the past after reading through the history of cache logs and concluding that on the balance of statistical probability the cache in question either wasn't going to get fixed because the CO either couldn't be bothered or had vanished from the game, or that it wasn't there to be found.

It isn't something I've done very often and isn't a choice I take lightly.

At the moment though I'm hanging well back and conducting a little experiment in a bid to ascertain what impact the Health Score is having in my local area on caches which have outstanding problems with zero attention. I'm intrigued as to how many months a cache can limp along with what I expect to be a poor Health Score. I'm several months in now and so far have seen zero impact.

Link to comment

In my opinion, you should at first contact the CO to ask for adoption, then if he doesn't reply you can log a N/M and then a N/A.

I think that doing the mantainance to a cache which is not actually yours is not the best thing to do, because if you are not the owner, you can't edit the description, change coordinates if necessary and you can't delete fake logs.

In these cases in my opinion you should hide a new cache connected to your account.

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

In my opinion, you should at first contact the CO to ask for adoption, then if he doesn't reply you can log a N/M and then a N/A.

I think that doing the mantainance to a cache which is not actually yours is not the best thing to do, because if you are not the owner, you can't edit the description, change coordinates if necessary and you can't delete fake logs.

I guess I don't get it...     Definitely don't agree...   "If I can't adopt that cache, well...then I'm logging an NA"  ?

 - What if you email to ask,  he happens to be active but says no, then you'd log a NM or NA? 

Why not log that NM  before your email asking to take over that piecea carp?

Most hides requiring a lot of attention in this area (1.5/1.5s mostly...) aren't interesting enough to adopt.  Not many folks first choice in cache maintenance actions...

The rest I sorta agree with.  :)

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

POP QUIZ...

In prepping for a breakfast GC Event this morning, we checked out the area (some distance from home) to see if there were any GCs worth pursuing afterward.  One of those found was: GC2QNXR

Log Summary:

  • Problems First Noted: 6/19/2015 (No "NM" logged--No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • Seven more "Found" Logs (8/27/15 -- 9/3/16), Six of which mention problems requiring attention.
  • CO Last Visited: 10/15/2016.
  • Two more "Found" Logs (11/13/16), One of which comes back & logs "NM".
  • First "NM" Logged: 11/26/2016 (No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • 2 More "Found" Logs.
  • Second "NM" Logged: 6/11/2017 (No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken).
  • Another "Found" Log: 7/14/2017.

As of This Posting (9/17/17), No Acknowledgment--No Action Taken--in 27 Months.

I'm considering logging "NA", even though I've never actually attempted finding this cache, which brings up another question related to the OP....

Back to hypotheticals.... Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

 

I thought the health score was going to pick caches like this up and get a reviewer's attention. But maybe it still depends on the reviewer. They may choose not to do anything until the NA is logged.

Personally, I think you'd be doing the pastime a favor by posting an NA. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

 It stayed temp disabled for several months until a reviewer asked what  was happening to it, and then the CO archived it. 

 

Why do COs do this? There's one in my area that does this each and everytime someone posts an NA and they get the reviewer disable note. He's not going to fix the cache. He never does. More often the cache is gone. Strings of DNFs. He's not going to replace it. A couple months later the reviewer disables his cache. 

He's not that unusual. Many COs do this. Prolong the final archival and won't archive their own cache, knowing full well they will not be replacing or fixing any of their caches.

Why do people do this? Hoping for a throwdown?  

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I thought the health score was going to pick caches like this up and get a reviewer's attention. But maybe it still depends on the reviewer. They may choose not to do anything until the NA is logged.

Hmmmm, I think I may have my answer:

Quote

At the moment though I'm hanging well back and conducting a little experiment in a bid to ascertain what impact the Health Score is having in my local area on caches which have outstanding problems with zero attention. I'm intrigued as to how many months a cache can limp along with what I expect to be a poor Health Score. I'm several months in now and so far have seen zero impact.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Why do COs do this. There's one in my area that does this each and everytime someone posts an NA and they get the reviewer disable note. He's not going to fix the cache. He never does. More often the cache is gone. Strings of DNFs. He's not going to replace it. A couple months later the reviewer disables his cache. 

He's not that unusual. Many COs do this. Prolong the final archival and won't archive their own cache, knowing full well they will not be replacing or fixing any of their caches.

Why do people do this? Hoping for a throwdown?  

I think some of them may be lying to themselves. Basically, "I'll do it this time for sure!" Then that falls apart and they just shrug it off until the next time.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Why do COs do this? There's one in my area that does this each and everytime someone posts an NA and they get the reviewer disable note. He's not going to fix the cache. He never does. More often the cache is gone. Strings of DNFs. He's not going to replace it. A couple months later the reviewer disables his cache. 

He's not that unusual. Many COs do this. Prolong the final archival and won't archive their own cache, knowing full well they will not be replacing or fixing any of their caches.

Why do people do this? Hoping for a throwdown?  

Exactly.

A local CO with 1000+ hides openly invites cache replacements from anyone prepared to bring their own cache and clearly has absolutely no intention of maintaining themselves.

Sometimes there's a Temp Disable with a threat to archive if people keep logging DNF instead of replacing the cache.

Occasionally there's an Archive with a note giving the lack of someone prepared to replace the cache as the reason.

CO is still very active and placing new caches.

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I thought the health score was going to pick caches like this up and get a reviewer's attention. But maybe it still depends on the reviewer. They may choose not to do anything until the NA is logged.

Some reviewers may be more interested in number of DNFs as the NM is just a status which is not cumulating. Maybe they have some tool that uses some algorithm. :)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Why do COs do this? There's one in my area that does this each and everytime someone posts an NA and they get the reviewer disable note. He's not going to fix the cache. He never does. More often the cache is gone. Strings of DNFs. He's not going to replace it. A couple months later the reviewer disables his cache. 

He's not that unusual. Many COs do this. Prolong the final archival and won't archive their own cache, knowing full well they will not be replacing or fixing any of their caches.

Why do people do this? Hoping for a throwdown?  

I think that they are not hoping a throwdown. I have one example that I can not explain, but I am sure that throwdown was not wanted.

https://coord.info/GCNFHY

I found that a very large object, where the cache was inside, has been recently moved away and the idea of the cache was permanently ruined. There were absolutely no way to restore the original cache construction. I immediatelly logged NA and I was surprised when the CO replied by just disabling the cache for 6 months and then reviewer archived the cache.

I have also seen that reviewer A archives a cache made by (active) reviewer B due to lack of maintenance. :o

Perhaps this is a similar psychological mechanism that also prevents logging DNF when it comes to it.

 

Link to comment
On 9/16/2017 at 7:02 AM, kunarion said:

 

As an example, GC11TY9 had a missing lid for the past 3 years, when the NM was logged.  Also, there's a mention of a nearby homeless camp.  If you decide that's where you wish to bring cachers, by adopting the cache or creating a new cache at that spot, prepare for more maintenance issues.

I would go ahead and NA if a lid has been missing for three years. If that's the case, it's obvious the CO has no interest in maintaining the cache site. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 9/16/2017 at 3:50 PM, L0ne.R said:

So, my neighbor's grass is 2 feet high. He's a perfectly healthy 40 year old but keeps saying he doesn't have time to mow the lawn. Every evening he's in front of the TV. I'm out cutting my own grass, would it be the neighborly thing to do to cut his grass? Would my neighbors think it was a good thing that I cut his grass while he watched another 4 hours of Netflix? Would my other neighbors get all gong ho about taking turns cutting his grass? 

I think it's more likely the neighbors will get together and discuss who amongst us is going to call city hall and have the city light a fire under his lazy behind. 

And if you were to take this approach, and started cutting his grass, eventually he will be seated on his porch with his feet up drinking coffee watching you push the mower around his yard. Or he may not even bother with a simple "thank you" after you're done. 

 

On 9/17/2017 at 3:07 AM, arisoft said:

If the logbook is not full anymore, the cache do not need maintenance.

It promotes laziness. Simple maintenance issues can be fixed by leaving another log book when one is full or dumping water out of the container. But the problems still exist. The container has an obvious breach in the container to allow the water in and it needs to be fixed by the CO. The log books need to be collected and audited by the CO. These are the duties that need to be performed by the CO not the cachers. 

If the CO can't be bothered to fix simple issues like replacing a broken container that is collecting water every two weeks, then the cache needs to be archived and the CO needs to come get his/her trash and move on. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 17/9/2017 at 1:39 AM, cerberus1 said:

I guess I don't get it...     Definitely don't agree...   "If I can't adopt that cache, well...then I'm logging an NA"  ?

 - What if you email to ask,  he happens to be active but says no, then you'd log a NM or NA? 

Why not log that NM  before your email asking to take over that piecea carp?

Most hides requiring a lot of attention in this area (1.5/1.5s mostly...) aren't interesting enough to adopt.  Not many folks first choice in cache maintenance actions...

The rest I sorta agree with.  :)

Maybe I didn't say that I am talking about abandoned and missing or destroyed caches. Obviously i am not meaning active caches belonging to other owners.

 

The only reasons to log a N/A on an abandoned cache in my opinion are:

1) the cache has missed for a long period of time (months after the first N/M log) and the owner has not replaced it yet without a motivation.

 

2) the cache is still at the place but totally destroyed, and the owner hasn't done mantainance for a long time.

 

in these situations the owner may have given up geocaching, or may be very busy. So I usually email him, asking about the cache. If he doesn't reply, there are two options

1) I perform mantainance to his caches without his permission ( and in my previous answer I explained why this is not a good thing in my opinion)

2) I post a N/A note, writing that the owner has disappeared and hasn't replaced the cache for a long time 

If the owner replies I explain him the situation about the cache. In these situations many owners archive the cache by themselves or give it in adoption, but there aren't other options, an owner MUST do mantainance.

if he doesn't do it, he's only occupying a place with a disappeared  cache.

Edited by simoktm
Little mistake
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, simoktm said:

in these situations the owner may have given up geocaching, or may be very busy. So I usually email him, asking about the cache. If he doesn't reply, there are two options

In my experience the CO often has not given up on geocaching and is in fact very active - but in finding only and not in maintaining their own caches.

And as for emailing the CO - some CO's might claim that you're trying to bully them :unsure:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience the CO often has not given up on geocaching and is in fact very active - but in finding only and not in maintaining their own caches.

And as for emailing the CO - some CO's might claim that you're trying to bully them :unsure:

Luckily it never happened to me but... you are right. Generally the "abandoned caches" I find belongs to newbies who hide the cache and then immediately give up geocaching ( and often the destroyed cache becomes rubbish :( ) but there are surely other situations...

But let me say that an active geocacher who finds the time for searching a lot of caches and doesn't mantain his own geocaches is not a good owner :( 

Link to comment
On 9/17/2017 at 9:19 AM, RufusClupea said:

Back to hypotheticals.... Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

A lot of people disagree with me, but I think it makes perfect sense in many cases to log an NM without ever being at GZ. The typical case is one where an examinations of the logs makes it clear that one or more of the previous loggers should have already posted an NM. When I'm considering visiting the cache and see that, I'll post the NM they didn't understand they needed to post.

To me, the case with NAs is even clearer. I go so far as the claim that it's unusual to visit GZ before posting an NA. When I post an NA, it's almost always because, just from looking at the logs, I decide the cache is not worth visiting, so it's time to take it off the books.

The case you present is a little different, though, because of those finds interspersed with the other logs. Unless those finds aren't valid -- "No cache here, but I was here, so I'm claiming the find" -- I'd be very reluctant to post an NA since whatever the maintenance issue is, it doesn't seem to be preventing the cache from being viable. I wouldn't normally think there was any reason to try to kill a cache just because something is wrong that doesn't appear to be critical.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Many caches we see with multiple issues are 1.5 (or lower) traditionals that seem to be the most visited by others today. 

Those get temp fixes of paper and throwdown containers  often enough that I don't see how one could know there's currently an issue to NM or NA, without looking at it yourself.   :)

Just as one example, if I look at the logs of a frequently visited cache, and it shows a few DNFs followed by nothing, it's reasonable for me to conclude that the cache is missing and no one's bothering to go look for it -- or, if they are, they aren't finding it but aren't bothering to file a DNF -- so I'll log an NM while not visiting GZ for the same reason no one else is visiting GZ. That's basically exactly the maintenance issue: this cache was frequently found, but now no one's visiting GZ, so the CO needs to check on it.

Things are trickier for an NA on such a cache, but I still see no particular reason to visit GZ. Either the logs tell me the cache is toast or they don't. Visiting GZ to discover that at that one specific point in time the cache is, indeed, missing seems like a minor data point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Just as one example, if I look at the logs of a frequently visited cache, and it shows a few DNFs followed by nothing, it's reasonable for me to conclude that the cache is missing and no one's bothering to go look for it -- or, if they are, they aren't finding it but aren't bothering to file a DNF -- so I'll log an NM while not visiting GZ for the same reason no one else is visiting GZ. That's basically exactly the maintenance issue: this cache was frequently found, but now no one's visiting GZ, so the CO needs to check on it.

Things are trickier for an NA on such a cache, but I still see no particular reason to visit GZ. Either the logs tell me the cache is toast or they don't. Visiting GZ to discover that at that one specific point in time the cache is, indeed, missing seems like a minor data point.

I understand what you're saying, and we no longer do the types that are prone to issues anymore because of doing similar. 

 - Maybe for a souvenir day, and I'm too busy to go elsewhere...   :)

But we've seen just as many strings of DNFs that are followed with all Found It by the very next weekend or two (when the next group comes through for the numbers) to judge by logs anymore.  Head to it and there's already a "replacement".  Throwdowns on caches with problems kind of desensitized many to issues,  so few may log DNF, NM, or NA anymore.  From earlier experiences we've had, all those Found Its after a NM kinda only makes that cacher look like a grouse to others.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Just as one example, if I look at the logs of a frequently visited cache, and it shows a few DNFs followed by nothing, it's reasonable for me to conclude that the cache is missing and no one's bothering to go look for it -- or, if they are, they aren't finding it but aren't bothering to file a DNF -- so I'll log an NM while not visiting GZ for the same reason no one else is visiting GZ. That's basically exactly the maintenance issue: this cache was frequently found, but now no one's visiting GZ, so the CO needs to check on it.

Things are trickier for an NA on such a cache, but I still see no particular reason to visit GZ. Either the logs tell me the cache is toast or they don't. Visiting GZ to discover that at that one specific point in time the cache is, indeed, missing seems like a minor data point.

Logs can be misleading as all get out. There could be 10 DNFs in a row and the cache still be in place. The cache could have been repaired/replaced without a word, but then had no new logs yet.

Sure, we can read the logs and make an assumption of what might be going on. The fact is though, we don't know anything until we look for ourselves. Even then, we probably wouldn't know for sure but at least we can log what our experience was and why we think there could be a problem.

Edited to add: Saying this because i've had armchair logs come in on a couple of my caches. Wasn't the end of the world mind ya, but it did irritate me somewhat. One required a paddle down the creek to check, which i admit, was fun. Still, it's mainly the fact that the person logging the NA didn't have any idea what he was talking about.

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 9/17/2017 at 10:19 AM, RufusClupea said:

I'm considering logging "NA", even though I've never actually attempted finding this cache, which brings up another question related to the OP....

Back to hypotheticals.... Can/should a "NM" or "NA" be logged even if/though one has never actually seen/attempted a find (going just on the strength of Log entries)?

 

I do this all the time.  When I'm planning a caching day I look at the caches in the area and log NM/NA where it seems to be needed.  Occasionally this results in a cache being fixed; mostly it results in the cache being TD'd by the reviewer, then Archived (also by the reviewer.). This gets non-existent caches off the map.

I know there are those who don't think this is proper procedure, but I don't care what they think or say.  

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

Logs can be misleading as all get out. There could be 10 DNFs in a row and the cache still be in place. The cache could have been repaired/replaced without a word, but then had no new logs yet.

While logs can be misleading, except in rare cases, there's no way to justify an NA without additional information from the logs, so to that extent you're forced to trust the logs. For example, it would be stupid to post an NA for no reason other than visiting GZ and not finding the cache. I'm reasonably sure even those who think a visit to GZ is required to post an NA will concede that the NA still wouldn't be justified (generally) without addition information that can only come from the log.

Sure, I evaluate the logs carefully and try to judge whether they present a consistent story, but if it's the worst case and I'm completely fooled by the logs, well, then, a lot of bogus, untrustworthy logs is something of a maintenance issue, too, n'est pas?

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

Edited to add: Saying this because i've had armchair logs come in on a couple of my caches. Wasn't the end of the world mind ya, but it did irritate me somewhat. One required a paddle down the creek to check, which i admit, was fun. Still, it's mainly the fact that the person logging the NA didn't have any idea what he was talking about.

Yes, I understand. I'm only thinking about people who are competent. While mistaken NMs and NAs are troublesome, they're unavoidable. I'm prepared to put up with a few more of them rather than discouraging everyone from posting NMs and NAs on caches when the log tells a clear story.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

The case you present is a little different, though, because of those finds interspersed with the other logs. Unless those finds aren't valid -- "No cache here, but I was here, so I'm claiming the find" -- I'd be very reluctant to post an NA since whatever the maintenance issue is, it doesn't seem to be preventing the cache from being viable. I wouldn't normally think there was any reason to try to kill a cache just because something is wrong that doesn't appear to be critical.

You might (or might not) think differently if you read the actual logs (which is why I posted a link to the cache).  What's happened in this case is the container has disappeared entirely, leaving only a log, in apparently continually deteriorating condition.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, RufusClupea said:

You might (or might not) think differently if you read the actual logs (which is why I posted a link to the cache).

Yes, exactly. I consider each cache a specific case. That's why I'm entirely against applying a general rule that says you can never post an NM or an NA without visiting the cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Logs can be misleading as all get out. There could be 10 DNFs in a row and the cache still be in place. The cache could have been repaired/replaced without a word, but then had no new logs yet.

In the first case where the DNFs are piling up, unless it's a high-difficulty cache, the owner should be checking on it to confirm that the cache is really there. If they don't there's a good chance people will just stop attempting their cache. Really, how many cachers are going to bother looking for a cache with 10 straight DNFs?

In the second case, the failure to log an OM is squarely the CO's fault. How is anyone supposed to know that the cache has been fixed? Again, cachers would probably just keep skipping it as above.

In either case, I'd say an NM is absolutely the right course of action. The CO can then clear the NM attribute with an OM that explains that the cache is in good condition and findable.

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

There are caches out there that are extremely hard to find that rack up quite a few DNFs and people still go for it. 

Yes, of course. We're not talking about a special cache like that. We're talking about a typical cache with an average rating that is normally found.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 5:03 PM, Mudfrog said:

Logs can be misleading as all get out. There could be 10 DNFs in a row and the cache still be in place. The cache could have been repaired/replaced without a word, but then had no new logs yet.

Sure, we can read the logs and make an assumption of what might be going on. The fact is though, we don't know anything until we look for ourselves. Even then, we probably wouldn't know for sure but at least we can log what our experience was and why we think there could be a problem.

Edited to add: Saying this because i've had armchair logs come in on a couple of my caches. Wasn't the end of the world mind ya, but it did irritate me somewhat. One required a paddle down the creek to check, which i admit, was fun. Still, it's mainly the fact that the person logging the NA didn't have any idea what he was talking about.

From the a cache owners perspective there's little in this game than can't be corrected by an owner's maintenance log.   If everyone's doing what their suppose to do and posting the necessary logs,  the status of any cache should be quite clear and no guesswork should be required.   IMO if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

     

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

From the a cache owners perspective there's little in this game than can't be corrected by an owner's maintenance log.   If everyone's doing what their suppose to do and posting the necessary logs,  the status of any cache should be quite clear and no guesswork should be required.   IMO if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

     

That very much depends on the nature of the cache in question.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

From the a cache owners perspective there's little in this game than can't be corrected by an owner's maintenance log.   If everyone's doing what their suppose to do and posting the necessary logs,  the status of any cache should be quite clear and no guesswork should be required.   IMO if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

     

I agree. For the majority of caches out there, there's a good chance one showing 10 DNFs in a row has an issue. I'm not debating that at all. And i do agree that we're all in this together and that we all can help keep geocaching "cleaned up". Imo though, it's not my place, nor my right, to say anything from afar when the only thing i have to go on is logs posted on a cache page. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You seem to be quick to respond but have no time to explain?    Sorry but I don't except vague responses as fact.  How am I to learn anything if you don't (or won't) enlighten me?     

The Earth is round.

Water is wet.

Caches exist which have lots of DNF's because they are difficult to find.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

IMO if a cache is allowed to have 10 dnf's posted on it without the owner checking in,  there's an issue.

Normally there is practically no DNFs even if the cache was completely destroyed. DNF is too complicated for most geocachers.

One of my caches may currently need maintenance because there are couple of "Found" logs stating that the logbook was not found.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I agree. For the majority of caches out there, there's a good chance one showing 10 DNFs in a row has an issue. I'm not debating that at all. And i do agree that we're all in this together and that we all can help keep geocaching "cleaned up". Imo though, it's not my place, nor my right, to say anything from afar when the only thing i have to go on is logs posted on a cache page. 

I'm seeing this through a different lens than you probably are.  Let's exclude the long distance, remote caches for one minute and focus on the majority of caches I had in mind in my response.    I understand that this isn't a one size fits all argument and there are some caches owners that are deathly afraid of my position.   I don't want to leave the impression that there are situations where it's ok to neglect cache maintenance because of the type of cache one chooses to hide.   Arguing a cache maintenance policy based on a small number of particular cache types is counter productive to the overall health of the game.   There's no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to  look at any cache page and instantly know the overall health of that cache.  At least that should be the goal.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

Normally there is practically no DNFs even if the cache was completely destroyed. DNF is too complicated for most geocachers.

One of my caches may currently need maintenance because there are couple of "Found" logs stating that the logbook was not found.

That's why using the proper log is important.   It's actually quite simple.   Pick the log that best describes your experience and let the cache owner interpret the logs and act accordingly.   

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The Earth is round.

Water is wet.

Caches exist which have lots of DNF's because they are difficult to find.

 

After 10 dnf's I'd think the cache owner would start to wonder what's up, even if it was wicked hard.    I'd be wondering after three or four.    

Edited by justintim1999
the usual
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

After 10 dnf's I'd think the cache owner would start to wonder what's up, even if it was a wicked hard.    I'd be wondering after three or four.    

That's why using the proper log is important.   It's actually quite simple.   Pick the log that best describes your experience and let the cache owner interpret the logs and act accordingly.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's why using the proper log is important.   It's actually quite simple.   Pick the log that best describes your experience and let the cache owner interpret the logs and act accordingly.  

You know me and how I define a dnf.   It means people actually reached gz and searched.   Regardless of the difficulty, four or five of those and I'll assume something is not quite rite and check up on the cache..

Choosing the proper log is quite important,  indeed.     

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Might I cite GC4MZ8P as an example of a cache that could rightfully have 10 DNFs in a row and not require a NM.  It has 395 DNFs and 0 finds, but regular OM maintenance logs confirming the cache is there.  IMO, even 10 DNFs in a row on that one would not merit a NM on that one. 

That said, I do generally agree that 10 DNFs in a row should call for a maintenance log.  My example is an extreme one, but even in cases where it may not be that extreme, I think by looking at the log type summary--in particular the Finds to DNFs ratio, one can get a pretty clear picture of whether this is just one of those 'special case' caches that tricks a lot of people or if it's actually gone. 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, m0bean said:

Might I cite GC4MZ8P as an example of a cache that could rightfully have 10 DNFs in a row and not require a NM.  It has 395 DNFs and 0 finds, but regular OM maintenance logs confirming the cache is there.  IMO, even 10 DNFs in a row on that one would not merit a NM on that one. 

That said, I do generally agree that 10 DNFs in a row should call for a maintenance log.  My example is an extreme one, but even in cases where it may not be that extreme, I think by looking at the log type summary--in particular the Finds to DNFs ratio, one can get a pretty clear picture of whether this is just one of those 'special case' caches that tricks a lot of people or if it's actually gone. 

 

If the cache owner is confirming that the cache is still there than what can one do?   You have to admit that the lure to find this particular cache is huge.  Be the first to find the cache that 395 other cacher's couldn't.   

Link to comment
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Ok,  I'll bite.   Give me an example of a cache that has 10 dnf's in a row that should be exempt from a cache owner checking up on it?

Here's an example of a cache with 10 DNF's in a row - after long searches by experienced cachers - that was there all along.

I knew there was one around here that had more DNF's than finds but wasn't sure if it met with your criteria.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...