Red Wrench = Kiss of Death?

[+Ladybug Kids]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 4:03 PM, barefootjeff said:

Yes, you can, like if the hint says it's in a stump and the only stump within cooee of GZ is devoid of cache, then it's a pretty fair bet it's missing. But even so, the canned NM is "the cache might be missing", not is missing - you're allowed to be wrong, that's perfectly fine. Not logging an NM when you're reasonably sure the cache is missing is just passing responsibility onto that great Somebody Else to clean up all those abandoned missing caches cluttering up the map.

I don't have enough hubris to assume that just because I didn't find the cache at what appears to be the hint location, that the cache isn't there. 

Logging a DNF does not pass the buck to "Somebody Else to clean up all those abandoned missing caches cluttering up the map."  Reviewers use growing DNF log strings to identify problems with caches.  Because some cachers use "Needs Maintenance" in lieu of "DNF," when they didn't find the cache, some Reviewers have resorted to filtering on "DNF" and "Needs Maintenance" logs in order to capture those caches that may be missing.  Prior to adopting this filtering strategy, the "Needs Maintenance" logs broke up the DNF strings and as a result, "reset" the DNF clock.

[+Rebore]

Latest example, there was a cache hidden at a structure I pass by nearly every day. First there was a fenced-off construction zone and I decided to write a note, because GZ was not legally accessible, but the cache might still be in place. The owner responded promptly and disabled the listing. After a few days the whole structure was removed, so the cache is surely gone now. I wrote another note, knowing the owner will read it and after a few days another cacher reported that  the structure was removed. Guess what, he also wrote a note.

No DNF, no NM, no NA. The owner knows what is going on, and so does everybody else. If he shouldn't react to that after a reasonable ammount of time, there will be a NA and the reviewer will take care of it. Untli then, the community can handle the situation without any algorithm or reviewer intervention.

 

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, that's a good example of a process that works which the algorithm likely wouldn't touch. And even if it did, the owner is active and aware and the reviewer won't do anything if they see that the owner is taking care of the cache. So that's a moot point.

Edited December 13, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Rebore: your first note was a reasonable opportunity for using NM - the cache got enclosed inside a construction area and was no longer legally accessible. Didn't that mean the cache needed maintenance? It surely did. Why care about increasing the CHS when the health of the cache really got worse?

The second note was okay as the listing had already been disabled. It was just an update on the situation there.

[+redsox_mark]

19 hours ago, Ladybug Kids said:

I don't have enough hubris to assume that just because I didn't find the cache at what appears to be the hint location, that the cache isn't there. 

 

Of course you don't need to use the "might be missing" flag in that case.   I have very little hubris, especially when it comes to geocaching.   95% or more of my DNFs I think the cache is likely there.  But there are cases where I think it is highly likely to be missing, and I think this use of the "flag" (which generates NM) is valid, and why I assume Groundspeak added it.   Cache in a stump example if only one stump within 100 metres is one, if the cache is large enough.  E.g I can be pretty sure to search a single stump for an Ammo can.    If it is a nano in a stump I'd log a DNF, and forget about it.   Other examples; hint is "sign, velcro".   Only one sign in sight, with velcro attached, but no cache.   Etc.   The very few times I've used it I will explain why, e.g. I found the sign and velcro.    Now the CO might come back and say "Oh, it's not there anymore, I moved it and didn't update the hint".. in which case the NM flag is still valid.     If, somehow, there was another piece of velcro on that sign and I didn't find that, and the cache was there.. then.. well,.. I only said it MIGHT be missing. 

"Might be missing" is kind of poor wording.. every DNF might be missing.   I think what it means is I have good reason to believe it is likely to be missing.  

Personally I think the "might be missing" flag is useful, to distinguish those few times where I have reasons to believe the cache is likely missing vs. the 95% (or more like 99%) where I have no idea; only that I couldn't find it.  

 

[+Rebore]

8 hours ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

Rebore: your first note was a reasonable opportunity for using NM - the cache got enclosed inside a construction area and was no longer legally accessible.

I agree that NM would have been ok to log, too. But I haven't found that cache and was only assuming it is hidden on the structure because of the high T rating, so I chose to write a note first.

[+Ladybug Kids]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 3:59 AM, redsox_mark said:

Personally I think the "might be missing" flag is useful, to distinguish those few times where I have reasons to believe the cache is likely missing vs. the 95% (or more like 99%) where I have no idea; only that I couldn't find it.  

I do agree with this and I have done this, but in rare instances (probably fewer than a couple dozen times out of nearly 1000 DNFs).  I chose not to describe it to keep my post simple.

[+colleda]

On 06/12/2017 at 4:32 PM, colleda said:

I DNF'd a cache GC65GW4 back in June.

I logged my DNF (always do if I can't find it). I also logged a NM. I'm not at all concerned about whether the CO checks on it or not BUT, since the red wrench, there have been no subsequent attemps to find it, well, any that have logged that is.  Is it a N American thing? See a DNF and red wrench and pass it over, filter it out, put on ignore list? Searchers seemed to have been active enough before the DNF. Or, are there very few cachers in that area?

 

 

Getting back to my original topic and after reading responses I'm getting the feeling that the red wrench may be putting off subsequent, to mine, searches. Before logging the NM I read back through previous logs that mentioned, more than once, that the area was thick scrub, a warning to wear long pants etc. These comments indicated that the the area around GZ had changed substantially since the last find. The area, as we found it, was devoid of scrub, no cow bones, and there were indications as mentioned in my log, that there had been very high water there and, if  a lot of vegetation has been washed away, what hope does a small cache container have? I was hopeful that the CO may be diligent in his/her/their care of their caches. I am confident that the cache is gone but only the CO can corfirm it hence the NM "cache may be missing".

[+SeattleWayne]

Someone with 3,000 Finds might have an idea of what they're looking for and geo-senses might be telling them that the cache might be missing. Keyword: might. Not confirmed. Hence the NM to the CO to come have a look.

[+colleda]

Another DNF has been logged. Maybe the CHS will take care of this cache. We'll see, but due to the red wrench it could take a while.

[Keystone]

21 minutes ago, colleda said:

Another DNF has been logged. Maybe the CHS will take care of this cache. We'll see, but due to the red wrench it could take a while.

The CHS has not yet dropped to the point where a reminder notice would be sent to the CO, or where the cache would be brought to the local reviewer's attention.  A combination of additional negative logs + the passage of time is needed.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

The CHS has not yet dropped to the point where a reminder notice would be sent to the CO, or where the cache would be brought to the local reviewer's attention.  A combination of additional negative logs + the passage of time is needed.

It now has an NM logged over 6 months ago with no CO response, plus the two DNFs and 9 months since the last find, yet that's not enough to say it might need maintenance? Does the CHS give any weight at all to the outstanding NM or does it only look at DNFs?

[+TriciaG]

2 hours ago, colleda said:

Another DNF has been logged. Maybe the CHS will take care of this cache. We'll see, but due to the red wrench it could take a while.

Or one could log an NA, which would bring it to the reviewer's attention rather than waiting for the CHS to drop low enough...

[+CAVinoGal]

On 12/7/2017 at 9:04 AM, CAVinoGal said:

I log my DNF's if I have given it a good search; sometimes I'll go for a lonely cache, or one that "seems" to be missing.  Sometimes I'll find it, sometimes not.  Hubby and I were doing some hiking yesterday, saw the history on this one - GCKR54 - and figured we'd give it a look.  Bits and pieces found over the last 2 years, no owner response (hasn't logged in since 2011), we reached GZ and searched, and found nothing even like a container anywhere nearby.  It was in the woods, and overgrown as well.  I logged the DNF, and then a NM.  Based on this cachers previous hides (only one of which may still be active - we may see if we can find that one while we are in the area) it will soon be archived.  IMO, that would be the logical step.

I just reviewed this cache, and it seems my NM generated a prompt temp disable and likely soon to be archived, where 2 years or so of DNF's did nothing.  In this case, the Red Wrench seems to have been the trigger, not a number of DNF's.

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, Keystone said:

A combination of additional negative logs + the passage of time is needed.

That's what I meant but you've said it better. Thanks.