Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
colleda

Red Wrench = Kiss of Death?

57 posts in this topic

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

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 by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2