Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

I just sent a message (second message) to a CO (government agency) about a cache that has not been found since July on Maui. I asked if I should report that cache to Groundspeak so that they could archive it. We'll see if they respond to me or just replace or archive the cache on their own.

Curious, since you don't say ... Was the "message sent" on a cache with numerous DNFs, or one that just hasn't been found since July ?  Thanks.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The CHS is only a tool used by reviewers to identify caches that may be in need of attention by a cache owner.

The CHS is only a tool, but it isn't used only to help reviewers identify caches that may be in need of attention.

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's not hard to understand that the CHS was implemented to help reviewers deal with the vast number of caches out there.  It's crazy to think that it will function flawlessly.  

So why isn't it designed to better handle the situation where it doesn't function flawlessly, where it generates a false positive, where it sends a fix-it-or-archive-it "reminder" email in error?

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

To me that's backward thinking.   Why not design the system around the way the logs were intended to be used?  

My experience working in software development is that it's easier to change computer systems to match the way people will use them, than to change people to use the computer systems the way you want them to be used. And that's in a business context where people use these computer systems as part of their jobs.

In contrast, geocaching is just a hobby, and Groundspeak has even less leverage to force geocachers to use the logs the way you think they were "intended to be used".

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, niraD said:

My experience working in software development is that it's easier to change computer systems to match the way people will use them, than to change people to use the computer systems the way you want them to be used.

My experience is the same.  It hasn't always been like that, but software design methodologies have included user testing and user driven design for quite a few years now.   Even as a software developer for many years I understand that sometimes how a programmer thinks a site/application should work doesn't alway align with how users expect it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

I've always questioned this trend in automated problem cache detection because I'm not convinced there is any significant "needs of the many" being addressed here to begin with, even before considering whether sacrificing "the few" actually helps meet those needs of the many to any significant degree. Problem caches are just a fact of life in geocaching. There's no way to eliminate them all. So I'm not a big fan of this rabid movement to cut the number of bad caches in half, as if half as many is the difference between happy geocachers and sad miserable geocachers.

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I may be wrong but I don't think it's mandatory for reviewers to use the CHS.

I suppose I may have read too much into it, but my interpretation of an insider's recent comments was that, yes, in fact reviewers have been told they have to have a plan using CHS to identify and eliminate problem caches in their area. That doesn't mean they have to trust CHS, but the evidence is that some do, and how could I blame them? If I was volunteering for something and was suddenly told I'd have to do twice as much work, I probably wouldn't worry too much about the fine points of how to do it well, either.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Barefootjeff's experience exemplifies the problem. If the CHS is flagging your cache for some issue "below the surface" and the CO can't figure out what's wrong with the cache or the d/t ratings, how can this help fix the problem. Again, we are apparently talking about the rare exception. I understand HQ doesn't want to fully explain the algorithm to prevent "gaming the system" or lengthy debates about how they weigh various factors, but if this is supposed to be a "call to action" there has to be a way to know which action to take. It may be as simple as upping D or T, but especially for T rating that may result in misrepresenting the actual cache conditions just to placate a mysterious algorithm. If a CO contacts HQ scratching their head about why their cache was flagged, there should be an answer, either "try fixing this" or "bug in the system."

To me the answer is "Hi reviewer, I can't tell what the problem is with my cache. Someone DNF'd it, but it's clear to me that the cache is not potentially missing because they couldn't find it, and it's a lot of hassle just to look at the cache when I'm sure it's there and findable."  And if this is all true, and the reviewer agrees, then the solution would be ignore or post an OM.  Likely, ideally, the reviewer would pass the false negative on to GS; or suggest that I do so.  That's the end of the hand-off. If there's nothing I can do, then if it is a false positive, GS will decide if and how to adjust the algorithm.  It's out of my hands.  If it keeps happening, all the more reason to keep telling them.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I may be wrong but I don't think it's mandatory for reviewers to use the CHS.  I think it's a tool reviewers can use if they choose to.    It could also be that your reviewer is aware of the troubled caches in your area but has chosen not to flag them for reasons we're not privy to.

Agreed

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's important to consistently post your logs regardless of the cache or cache owner.  

Also this

 

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

What warrants a discussion is the "rare" ones that get caught up in it as well.  

Exactly, and hopefully in an effort to hone and improve the system, not destroy it. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
1 hour ago, niraD said:

My experience working in software development is that it's easier to change computer systems to match the way people will use them, than to change people to use the computer systems the way you want them to be used.

My experience is the same.  It hasn't always been like that, but software design methodologies have included user testing and user driven design for quite a few years now.   Even as a software developer for many years I understand that sometimes how a programmer thinks a site/application should work doesn't alway align with how users expect it to work.

However in this case the intent is to some degree alter how owners maintain their caches. By being proactive in identifying potential problem caches earlier, there is a level of attitude-adjustment intended in the system. So, we want the system to shape around how people play, but at the same time there is some pushback to get people to play just a little differently. ANd we see in some cases that some people don't like that; that's to be expected.  The understandable complaints (generally around false positives) is where the continuous improvement needs to be focused.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I've always questioned this trend in automated problem cache detection because I'm not convinced there is any significant "needs of the many" being addressed here to begin with, even before considering whether sacrificing "the few" actually helps meet those needs of the many to any significant degree. Problem caches are just a fact of life in geocaching. There's no way to eliminate them all. So I'm not a big fan of this rabid movement to cut the number of bad caches in half, as if half as many is the difference between happy geocachers and sad miserable geocachers.

I suppose I may have read too much into it, but my interpretation of an insider's recent comments was that, yes, in fact reviewers have been told they have to have a plan using CHS to identify and eliminate problem caches in their area. That doesn't mean they have to trust CHS, but the evidence is that some do, and how could I blame them? If I was volunteering for something and was suddenly told I'd have to do twice as much work, I probably wouldn't worry too much about the fine points of how to do it well, either.

I'm in favor of anything that's good for the game overall,  even if it doesn't benefit me directly.   

I have a hard time believing that a reviewer would take any action against a cache or cache owner solely based on the CHS.   I choose to believe they would look more closely at the cache before making a decisions.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I have a hard time believing that a reviewer would take any action against a cache or cache owner solely based on the CHS.   I choose to believe they would look more closely at the cache before making a decisions.    

Again:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

The CHS is only a tool, but it isn't used only to help reviewers identify caches that may be in need of attention.

No one is complaining about the hands-on actions of the volunteer reviewers based on the CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

However in this case the intent is to some degree alter how owners maintain their caches. By being proactive in identifying potential problem caches earlier, there is a level of attitude-adjustment intended in the system. So, we want the system to shape around how people play, but at the same time there is some pushback to get people to play just a little differently. ANd we see in some cases that some people don't like that; that's to be expected.  The understandable complaints (generally around false positives) is where the continuous improvement needs to be focused.

This is all why it's important to define what each log really means and when they should be used.   We've gone around and around on when to log a dnf.  I happen to believe that unless you reach gz and search you shouldn't post a dnf.   In the past the reason you posted a dnf really didn't matter much.  The CHS has suddenly made how you use the dnf relevant.   

From the Geocaching 101.  "If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" log so that the cache owner is notified"   The key words here are "if you visit a cache location".    Problem here is some would argue that they consider the parking area as part of the cache location.

So should we be asking GS to cater to every person's way of caching or should we be asking those that are using the logs incorrectly to change? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, niraD said:

Again:

No one is complaining about the hands-on actions of the volunteer reviewers based on the CHS.

Really?  All a reviewer is doing is taking the information generated by the CHS and looking to see if any caches actually need attention.  As far as I know not a single cache has ever been archived or disabled  by the CHS.  That's done by hands on flesh and blood reviewers.      If you tell me this is  all about how intrusive the friendly reminder e-mail is I'm probably gonna to pop a blood vessel.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So should we be asking GS to cater to every person's way of caching or should we be asking those that are using the logs incorrectly to change? 

A simple first step would be to modify the system to better accommodate false positives. Then the consequences of people logging "incorrectly" become much more manageable.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This is all why it's important to define what each log really means and when they should be used.   We've gone around and around on when to log a dnf.  I happen to believe that unless you reach gz and search you shouldn't post a dnf.   In the past the reason you posted a dnf really didn't matter much.  The CHS has suddenly made how you use the dnf relevant.   

From the Geocaching 101.  "If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" log so that the cache owner is notified"   The key words here are "if you visit a cache location".    Problem here is some would argue that they consider the parking area as part of the cache location.

So should we be asking GS to cater to every person's way of caching or should we be asking those that are using the logs incorrectly to change? 

 

So now you're saying you should only log a DNF if you're certain the cache is missing? I thought we had an NM log for that purpose and DNF just said "I didn't find it". I guess I'm not up with the times.

I got a DNF just last week saying the ground between the road and GZ was too wet due to the king tides and recent storms and he didn't want to get his feet wet. Is that now a fake DNF? Should I delete it?

How do you propose educating the vast majority of caches who never visit the forums or subscribe to the newsletter or blog to change they way they're using DNFs?

Actually this is the Help Centre's definition of a DNF log:

Quote

Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

I don't see anything in there about having to make a thorough search at GZ or that the cache has to be deemed missing. For the wet feet guy, he went out looking for the cache but didn't find it so that would seem to qualify as a DNF even though his reason for not finding it (boggy ground between him and the cache) had nothing to do with the condition of the cache itself.

Maybe they should start by at least settling on a consistent definition of what a DNF is.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

A simple first step would be to modify the system to better accommodate false positives. Then the consequences of people logging "incorrectly" become much more manageable.

The logical first step would get people to buy into truth in logging.  If they did I feel we'd see fewer false positives. 

It's time we stop expecting the mountain to be brought to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So now you're saying you should only log a DNF if you're certain the cache is missing? I thought we had an NM log for that purpose and DNF just said "I didn't find it". I guess I'm not up with the times.

I got a DNF just last week saying the ground between the road and GZ was too wet due to the king tides and recent storms and he didn't want to get his feet wet. Is that now a fake DNF? Should I delete it?

How do propose educating the vast majority of caches who never visit the forums or subscribe to the newsletter or blog to change they way they're using DNFs?

Actually this is the Help Centre's definition of a DNF log:

I don't see anything in there about having to make a thorough search at GZ or that the cache has to be deemed missing. For the wet feet guy, he went out looking for the cache but didn't find it so that would seem to qualify as a DNF even though his reason for not finding it (boggy ground between him and the cache) had nothing to do with the condition of the cache itself.

Maybe they should start by at least settling on a consistent definition of what a DNF is.

Is that what I was saying?    Can anyone be 100% sure a cache is actually missing.  No.  All I can tell you is that I reached the area where the cache was supposed to be located,   searched and didn't find it.

You shouldn't have to delete that dnf because it shouldn't have been posted in the first place.    Lets hope you don't get a bunch of those type of dnfs as I'm sure the CHS will eventually flag a cache that no one actually looked for.  

I don't see the definition?   Could you post it for all to see?

A consistent definition on what a DNF is.   Not your speaking my language.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The logical first step would get people to buy into truth in logging.  If they did I feel we'd see fewer false positives. 

It's time we stop expecting the mountain to be brought to us. 

Not all caches are D1s. Some are meant to be hard to find, either with clever camo or needle-in-a-haystack locations. Some are physically challenging to reach, leading to terrain-related DNFs. Are you suggesting they should be eliminated from the game to make the CHS's life easier?

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not all caches are D1s. Some are meant to be hard to find, either with clever camo or needle-in-a-haystack locations. Some are physically challenging to reach, leading to terrain-related DNFs. Are you suggesting they should be eliminated from the game to make the CHS's life easier?

Nope.  I'm suggesting let the reviewers interpret the logs based on all the cache's information and history.

Was it  one of your caches that received the false positive?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Doesn't it go without saying that you'd have to actually reach gz and look before you could inform the cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.  How can I do that from the parking lot?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You shouldn't have to delete that dnf because it shouldn't have been posted in the first place.    Lets hope you don't get a bunch of those type of dnfs as I'm sure the CHS will eventually flag a cache that no one actually looked for.

Why isn't that a DNF? He went looking for the cache but didn't find it. Where does it say a DNF must imply a missing cache? None of the 40+ DNFs on my hides were due to a missing cache. Were they ALL wrongly logged?

Last week I logged a DNF on a new cache. It turned out I actually looked right at the hiding place but didn't see it. After messaging the CO, I went back the next day and found it. The cache wasn't missing. I knew it wasn't missing when I logged the DNF as it was only just published and it was a micro in a needle-in-a-haystack location. Was my DNF wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Why isn't that a DNF? He went looking for the cache but didn't find it. Where does it say a DNF must imply a missing cache? None of the 40+ DNFs on my hides were due to a missing cache. Were they ALL wrongly logged?

Last week I logged a DNF on a new cache. It turned out I actually looked right at the hiding place but didn't see it. After messaging the CO, I went back the next day and found it. The cache wasn't missing. I knew it wasn't missing when I logged the DNF as it was only just published and it was a micro in a needle-in-a-haystack location. Was my DNF wrong?

When did I say a dnf implied a cache was missing?   Have you been reading what I've been saying?   You don't have to look to far as I've explained it within the last couple of posts but I'll explain it again here.   All a dnf should indicate is that a cacher reached gz and looked for the cache but didn't find it.   That's all.  It's only multiple dnfs posted in succession that give rise to the possibility that the cache COULD be missing.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Doesn't it go without saying that you'd have to actually reach gz and look before you could inform the cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.  How can I do that from the parking lot?

No, I've logged DNFs when I've done the long hike, almost reached GZ, could actually see the cache, but wasn't willing to climb out onto the narrow ledge to grab it. If you're that nit-picky to say that spending half a day hiking with the intention of finding a specific cache and then not being able to traverse the final couple of metres doesn't qualify as "looked for the cache but did not find it" (remember a "find" is defined as opening the container and signing the log, not just seeing it, so even though I could see the container I hadn't found it), then you have a lot of educating to do.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

When did I say a dnf implied a cache was missing? 

"If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" ".

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No, I've logged DNFs when I've done the long hike, almost reached GZ, could actually see the cache, but wasn't willing to climb out onto the narrow ledge to grab it. If you're that nit-picky to say that spending half a day hiking with the intention of finding a specific cache and then not being able to traverse the final couple of metres doesn't qualify as "looked for the cache but did not find it" (remember a "find" is defined as opening the container and signing the log, not just seeing it, so even though I could see the container I hadn't found it), then you have a lot of educating to do.

Why would you log a dnf on a cache you know is not missing?   You did find the cache but were unwilling to do what it took to sign the log.  Why isn't that a note?

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

"If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" ".

Where dose it day that?      I read the words "possibly missing"

Share this post


Link to post

The reality is that people log DNFs whenever they set out to find a cache but don't succeed. Traditionally that was what a DNF was, back when it was just an informational log and didn't have consequences, and I don't see how you're going to make them change their ways. The CO can't control how searchers do their logging and the CHS needs to accommodate that and not just blindly assume that DNFs imply something the writer never intended.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The reality is that people log DNFs whenever they set out to find a cache but don't succeed. Traditionally that was what a DNF was, back when it was just an informational log and didn't have consequences, and I don't see how you're going to make them change their ways. The CO can't control how searchers do their logging and the CHS needs to accommodate that and not just blindly assume that DNFs imply something the writer never intended.

I think a dnf has always been exactly what I've explained here.  It's was always intended to be a tool identify caches that were potentially missing.   Some where along the line people decided to change the way they've used them and now that change has the potential to adversely effect a cache.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would you log a dnf on a cache you know is not missing?   You did find the cache but were unwilling to do what it took to sign the log.  Why isn't that a note?

Because I went looking for the cache and didn't find it. That's what the definition says: I looked for the cache and didn't find it. Why isn't that a DNF? Why does a DNF have to imply the cache might be missing?

Also a note doesn't show it on the  map as one I unsuccessfully attempted and might want to come back and try again, maybe with some rope or a ladder.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Because I went looking for the cache and didn't find it. That's what the definition says: I looked for the cache and didn't find it. Why isn't that a DNF? Why does a DNF have to imply the cache might be missing?

Also a note doesn't show it on a map as one I unsuccessfully attempted and might want to come back and try again, maybe with some rope or a ladder.

You did find it.  You were looking right at it.  You chose not to retrieve it.   In my opinion you miss logged that cache.     Again,  a dnf doesn't necessary mean a cache is missing but three or four of them in a row is a reason to think something is wrong and should be checked up on.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think a dnf has always been exactly what I've explained here.  It's was always intended to be a tool identify caches that were potentially missing.   Some where along the line people decided to change the way they've used them and now that change has the potential to adversely effect a cache.

That might be the case where you live but it's not the common practice here. A DNF just means you went looking for the cache but couldn't complete the find, and that's how most people here use it. An NM means you think the cache might be missing, a DNF just means you didn't get to sign the log at the end of your search.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

That might be the case where you live but it's not the common practice here. A DNF just means you went looking for the cache but couldn't complete the find, and that's how most people here use it. An NM means you think the cache might be missing, a DNF just means you didn't get to sign the log at the end of your search.

An that's the problem.  If you can understand how multiple dnf could  indicate a potential problem than you can begin to understand why defining the use of a dnf is important. 

I'd never post a NM on a cache I thought was missing unless the previous two or three caches all posted dnfs and I was quite sure it was actually missing.  Posting a NM means the cache has an issue that needs to be addressed by the cache owner.   The issue could be one of many things least of all the fact that I think missing because I can't find it.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You did find it.  You were looking right at it.  You chose not to retrieve it.   In my opinion you miss logged that cache.     Again,  a dnf doesn't necessary mean a cache is missing but three or four of them in a row is a reason to think something is wrong and should be checked up on.

Did you not read what I wrote? "Remember a "find" is defined as opening the container and signing the log, not just seeing it, so even though I could see the container I hadn't found it".

Just because I could see the cache doesn't mean I'd "found" it in the geocaching sense of that word. If I'd found it, I would've logged a find, wouldn't I? And if I haven't "found it", in that geocaching sense, it's a DNF.

As I said, that's the common practice here. I've had DNFs logged on my caches because of approaching storms, too many mosquitoes, muggles close by, failing light, bored kids wanting to go home, even a guy with a dicky knee who didn't want to risk climbing up to where he thought the cache was. None of those have anything to do with the cache being missing.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Did you not read what I wrote? "Remember a "find" is defined as opening the container and signing the log, not just seeing it, so even though I could see the container I hadn't found it".

Just because I could see the cache doesn't mean I'd "found" it in the geocaching sense of that word. If I'd found it, I would've logged a find, wouldn't I? And if I haven't "found it", in that geocaching sense, it's a DNF.

As I said, that's the common practice here. I've had DNFs logged on my caches because of approaching storms, too many mosquitoes, muggles close by, failing light, bored kids wanting to go home, even a guy with a dicky knee who didn't want to risk climbing up to where he thought the cache was. None of those have anything to do with the cache being missing.

Oh,  word games.  I like this.   Word games usually means the argument is just about over.  Let's stop pretending you don't understand exactly what was implied here.   You know the cache isn't missing because you could physically see it.  You found the cache you just can't log it as such on line. 

If we can't bring ourselves to define what a dnf is and use it correctly than maybe we should partition GS to add another log to the toolbox.  

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

An that's the problem.  If you can understand how multiple dnf could  indicate a potential problem than you can begin to understand why defining the use of a dnf is important. 

I'd never post a NM on a cache I thought was missing unless the previous two or three caches all posted dnfs and I was quite sure it was actually missing.  Posting a NM means the cache has an issue that needs to be addressed by the cache owner.   The issue could be one of many things least of all the fact that I think missing because I can't find it.  

The canned NM for that situation is "the cache might be missing". Isn't that precisely what you're trying to define a DNF as? If you think the cache might be missing, don't you think it'd be a good idea for the CO to check on it?

As another example, there's a D5 cache in Newcastle, it's a magnetic micro on a 40-metre high observation tower, somewhere reachable between the bottom and the top. That gets lots of DNFs but none of those people think it's missing, they just know it's the mother of all needles in a haystack and it defeated them.

Share this post


Link to post

Quick little input: I too, if I spotted a cache but didn't have the tool or energy or desire to do the work necessary to sign the logbook, would in most cases log a note saying I almost got it, but may return. That's just what I would do.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The canned NM for that situation is "the cache might be missing". Isn't that precisely what you're trying to define a DNF as? If you think the cache might be missing, don't you think it'd be a good idea for the CO to check on it?

As another example, there's a D5 cache in Newcastle, it's a magnetic micro on a 40-metre high observation tower, somewhere reachable between the bottom and the top. That gets lots of DNFs but none of those people think it's missing, they just know it's the mother of all needles in a haystack and it defeated them.

My hope would be that after the third dnf the cache owner would take it upon themselves to check up on it.   An NM may be the only way to get the cache owner to check up on it.   

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Oh,  word games.  I like this.   Word games usually means the argument is just about over.  Let's stop pretending you don't understand exactly what was implied here.   You know the cache isn't missing because you could physically see it.  You found the cache you just can't log it as such on line. 

If we can't bring ourselves to define what a dnf is and use it correctly than maybe we should partition GS to add another log to the toolbox.  

No, it's not word games. A find is opening the container and signing the log. Anything short of that is a DNF.

The log type saying a cache might be missing already exists. It's the "cache might be missing" NM.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No, it's not word games. A find is opening the container and signing the log. Anything short of that is a DNF.

The log type saying a cache might be missing already exists. It's the "cache might be missing" NM.

No that's the conditions you have to meet to log it online.   I'm sorry but I can't log a dnf on a cache I can physically see.  Especially when I know that dnf may be counted negatively.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It gets dozens of DNFs. It's meant to be hard to find. Finds are rare, or at least they were until people started giving each other hints. That's why it's a D5. If the CO had to go and check on it after every third DNF he'd wouldn't have time to do any other caching.

Agree,  there are some caches that multiple dnf would mean less against.   I'm talking about the everyday run of the mill cache which make up the bulk of the caches out there.   Typically multiple dnfs indicate a possible issue.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

My hope would be that after the third dnf the cache owner would take it upon themselves to check up on it.   An NM may be the only way to get the cache owner to check up on it.   

It gets dozens of DNFs. It's meant to be hard to find. Finds are rare, or at least they were until people started giving each other hints. That's why it's a D5. If the CO had to go and check on it after every third DNF he'd wouldn't have time to do any other caching.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

An that's the problem.  If you can understand how multiple dnf could  indicate a potential problem than you can begin to understand why defining the use of a dnf is important. 

Interesting. The lesson I take from barefootjeff's example is that the text of the DNF log is critical to understanding the actual meaning of the DNF log.

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If we can't bring ourselves to define what a dnf is and use it correctly than maybe we should partition GS to add another log to the toolbox.  

As long as I've been geocaching, there have been people who would log a DNF when I wouldn't (e.g., pressed the button on the GPSr but never reached GZ), and there have been people who wouldn't log a DNF when I would (e.g., searched, but not long/thoroughly enough to convince myself that it is probably missing).

Good luck getting everyone to use DNF logs "correctly".

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

No that's the conditions you have to meet to log it online.   I'm sorry but I can't log a dnf on a cache I can physically see.  Especially when I know that dnf may be counted negatively.  

You mightn't but everyone else does. How is a CO supposed to control that?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

You mightn't but everyone else does. How is a CO supposed to control that?

That may explain some of the false positives we're seeing with the CHS.    As a cache owner I can only express my opinions and hope it makes enough sense for someone to consider changing the way they do things. 

Butterfly effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, niraD said:

Interesting. The lesson I take from barefootjeff's example is that the text of the DNF log is critical to understanding the actual meaning of the DNF log.

As long as I've been geocaching, there have been people who would log a DNF when I wouldn't (e.g., pressed the button on the GPSr but never reached GZ), and there have been people who wouldn't log a DNF when I would (e.g., searched, but not long/thoroughly enough to convince myself that it is probably missing).

Good luck getting everyone to use DNF logs "correctly".

So far so good.  As far as I can tell it's just  you and Barefootjeff I need to convince.   How am I doing?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sorry but I can't log a dnf on a cache I can physically see.

Until you retrieve the container and sign the log, how do you know for sure that it is the cache you are searching for? It might hold a laminated note telling you to keep searching. It might hold another puzzle that (when solved) will reveal the location of yet another stage. It might be a bit of trash that just happens to be the remains of some sort of container. It might be something else.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

Until you retrieve the container and sign the log, how do you know for sure that it is the cache you are searching for? It might hold a laminated note telling you to keep searching. It might hold another puzzle that (when solved) will reveal the location of yet another stage. It might be a bit of trash that just happens to be the remains of some sort of container. It might be something else.

Was it a puzzle cache or a multi.  Barefootjeff seemed to think it was the actual cache and his word on that is good enough for me.  If for some reason I was unsure I'd post a dnf.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So far so good.  As far as I can tell it's just  you and Barefootjeff I need to convince.   How am I doing?

Not so good. Here's another example for you: GC7B9MJ, one of the new virtuals at the figure-8 rock pools on a tidal shelf. It's only accessible at low tide and with fairly calm seas. So far it's had 3 DNFs from people who went for it but couldn't get out there because there were waves washing over the shelf and making it too dangerous. None of those DNFs could possibly imply that the rock pools were missing. I wonder what the CHS makes of that?

You can't change the way people use DNFs. The CHS has to accept that many DNFs don't convey any information about the state of the cache, because that's how the real world works.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not so good. Here's another example for you: GC7B9MJ, one of the new virtuals at the figure-8 rock pools on a tidal shelf. It's only accessible at low tide and with fairly calm seas. So far it's had 3 DNFs from people who went for it but couldn't get out there because there were waves washing over the shelf and making it too dangerous. None of those DNFs could possibly imply that the rock pools were missing. I wonder what the CHS makes of that?

You can't change the way people use DNFs. The CHS has to accept that many DNFs don't convey any information about the state of the cache, because that's how the real world works.

I didn't think so.   I'll have to re-double my efforts although I have a feeling NiraD may be warming to the idea that a little change in life is a good thing.     

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

Until you retrieve the container and sign the log, how do you know for sure that it is the cache you are searching for? It might hold a laminated note telling you to keep searching. It might hold another puzzle that (when solved) will reveal the location of yet another stage. It might be a bit of trash that just happens to be the remains of some sort of container. It might be something else.

Yep, I've done a few that had decoy containers like that :mellow:.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not so good. Here's another example for you: GC7B9MJ, one of the new virtuals at the figure-8 rock pools on a tidal shelf. It's only accessible at low tide and with fairly calm seas. So far it's had 3 DNFs from people who went for it but couldn't get out there because there were waves washing over the shelf and making it too dangerous. None of those DNFs could possibly imply that the rock pools were missing. I wonder what the CHS makes of that?

You can't change the way people use DNFs. The CHS has to accept that many DNFs don't convey any information about the state of the cache, because that's how the real world works.

If dnfs don't really mean anything than why dose GS incorporate them into the CHS? 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If dnfs don't really mean anything than why dose GS incorporate them into the CHS? 

Exactly! That what I've been saying all along. DNFs are a terrible metric for cache health, especially for higher D/T caches.

On the other side of the coin, if DNFs are meant to imply some likelihood that the cache is missing, why is that log type even allowed on earthcaches and virtuals?

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...