DNF Etiquette

[+dprovan]

10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's human nature to resist anything that may require a personal change.   It's much easier to expect everyone else to change around us.

Unfortunately, that's not what's going on here, but I've given up expecting you to understand.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sure "most" good cache owners would but as we know the CHS can't do that,  so a bunch of needless dnf means more caches flagged which means more unnecessary work for reviewers.

Which is why it's fundamentally wrong for the CHS to be pinging caches whose only sin is a few DNFs. If a DNF now truly is the equivalent of a "cache might be missing" NM, they should remove one or the other AND change the guidelines to indicate what action a CO must take in response to a DNF. At the moment, the guidelines are silent on any need for a CO to respond to DNFs, yet they are now penalised through the CHS if they don't.

Quote

I think we all agree that most caches with three or four dnfs should be checked up on by the owner.

I've previously given you examples of high difficulty caches (like the D5 observation tower in Newcastle) where DNFs are the norm rather than the exception. Three or four DNFs on a cache like that doesn't mean it should be checked by the owner - if I was the owner of that tower cache, I'd be checking on it if it got three or four finds in a row as I'd be wondering if someone had left it sitting out in the open. Not everything is a P&G!

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Silly is claiming you "didn't find the cache" when you never really looked for it in the first place. 

But you're going beyond that. You're saying it's bad form to log a DNF when I've spent hours searching for the cache and, when I finally spot it, I realise I can't safely reach it. Or if part way through my search a bunch of muggles come along and set up camp right where I was about to look next, or if my GPSr batteries die part way through the search, or if it starts raining or - you name it, I've had it in DNF logs on my caches. To me, they're all valid DNFs - the searcher was trying to find the cache but didn't succeed for whatever reason.

So having said that, here's a question for those in the "DNF = cache might be missing" camp. Suppose you go looking for a cache, spend an hour or two searching but come up empty handed and so, believing it's probably missing, log a DNF. But the next day, perhaps after having a sudden flash of inspiration or getting a hint from the CO, you go back again and this time find it. Do you then go back and delete yesterday's DNF or change it to a note, since you now know for sure the cache actually wasn't missing?

[+justintim1999]

26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It wasn't the manner in which you responded, it was that you hadn't really given any serious thought to what niraD said, as if his precise point wasn't important. I felt like you were trying to win an argument with an opponent rather than having a discussion in order to reach some common ground with a friend. I mean, it's OK not to act like niraD's friend, but this case seemed so obvious since you and niraD basically agreed, but you picked apart his point as if he was on the arguing against you.

Could you please point out exactly where we agreed.  I may have missed it.

Of course I'm going to pick apart their responses because I don't agree with them.   Isn't that what we're suppose to be doing here?  Making a point and defending it?

Every time I fire back I feel like I'm running the risk of alienating a friend.   I wish it was in me to just roll over and play dead.

Convince me that there isn't a flaw in the way some use dnf's and I'll consider it.   Simply ignore facts and this is what you get.  Me continuously pointing out the obvious and others refusing to admit to simple basic facts.   

It's fine if you don't want to change your logging practices.  Just don't tell me that in some instances they aren't having a negative effect on the game.   

It's a difference of opinion and that's all. 

For the record I love NiraD and I'd never, ever think of posting a dnf on one of their caches unless I actually searched for it  

In an effort to better myself and practice what I preach I've deleted about half of what was originally written here.  Later on tonight I'm sure I'll be glad I did.       

 

   

 

[+niraD]

59 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's human nature to resist anything that may require a personal change.   It's much easier to expect everyone else to change around us.

It's much easier to design a system that accommodates the way real people will actually use it.

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Silly is claiming you "didn't find the cache" when you never really looked for it in the first place. 

If only we had a single universally accepted definition for "really looked for it".

[+Team Microdot]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders

This still isn't true though - whether or not the guidelines led you to believe it.

*blink*

By their very nature that is what they do. They are not private messages to anyone, including oneself. If they were solely personal notes, then COs wouldn't have the right or ability to delete them, nor would they be publicly visible. They are public records, people's public commentary about a listing. They are not solely personal notes, whether or not you want to believe it.

Hold still sweeheart - you might have an eyelash

I'm not sure why you've switched from what the purpose of a log is to what the nature of a log is.

Nor have I made any claims that logs are solely anything.

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

 

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Okay, well it's not an insult, and most likely it's not even in reference to you anyway. If you write logs for other people to read, then you're not ignorant of the fact that other people read them. I'm using a word for what it means, not to insult. Now if you write logs that do confuse or mislead because you believe they only have meaning to yourself and couldn't care less about other people - I would call that a jerk move, and ignorant. I fully trust that isn't you.

Again you're trying to assert that when people write their logs they OWE something to other people - and that's not true.

A person can choose to write their logs in ways which might be of value to others - but there's no REQUIREMENT to do so.

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you understand that the dnf was created as a way to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing than its easy to understand why posting a dnf,  when no actual search occurred,  is a problem.

This isn't true.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I felt like you were trying to win an argument with an opponent rather than having a discussion in order to reach some common ground with a friend.

How awful.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Unfortunately, that's not what's going on here, but I've given up expecting you to understand.

Well - having a discussion in order to reach some common ground with a friend did't last very long

[+Gill & Tony]

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I can't write logs solely for personal use?

Isn't that what the personal cache note is for?

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I can't write logs solely for personal use?

Isn't that what the personal cache note is for?

No.

[+Gill & Tony]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

From the Groundspeak guidelines

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”.

Bold emphasis added

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

From the Groundspeak guidelines

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”.

Bold emphasis added

Correct - that's the point thebruce0 and I have been discussing - I believe he quoted the exact same words and even the bolding does not change that fact that this is not the purpose of a DNF log.

[+Gill & Tony]

I always thought that the personal cache notes were for, well, personal notes about the cache.  You know, the sort of stuff which isn't of relevance or of interest to other folk, like I didn't go to the cache because my wife phoned.  Am I mistaken?

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I always thought that the personal cache notes were for, well, personal notes about the cache.  You know, the sort of stuff which isn't of relevance or of interest to other folk, like I didn't go to the cache because my wife phoned.  Am I mistaken?

You may use personal cache notes whichever way suits you.

They aren't for writing logs.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's fine if you don't want to change your logging practices.

Ultimately, I don't think our logging practices matter.

And by "our", I mean those who post in the forums, and those who read the forums, and even anyone else who might be aware of the CHS. We're a tiny fraction of the people who post logs. The vast majority are blissfully unaware of the CHS, and will post what they post no matter how much the CHS is debated here.

They aren't going to change for the CHS. But the CHS could conceivably change for them.

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

From the Groundspeak guidelines

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”.

Bold emphasis added

My DNFs are principally to record the fact that, on the day, I didn't find the cache, so it'll appear on the map as a blue frowny to remind me to perhaps try again sometime, and to tell the story of my adventure leading to my non-find. I don't see why the cache has to be extra-difficult to find or possibly missing to qualify - my Blind Freddy skills have resulted in DNFs on D1s everyone else spots immediately. Or are you saying that a DNF on a correctly-rated D1 that isn't missing is automatically wrong?

I ask again. If you log a DNF on a cache you searched for but couldn't find, suspecting it might be missing, and, let's say, put it on your watchlist to see what happens, but the next log is a find and the finder includes a photo showing their signature and the signatures of those who found it prior to your attempt, proving it couldn't possibly have been missing at the time you searched. Do you, or should you, delete your DNF or change it to a note?

And, putting on my CO hat, should I be deleting DNFs logged on my hides when the cache wasn't actually missing, so as not to confuse the poor CHS algorithm?

[+niraD]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

my Blind Freddy skills have resulted in DNFs on D1s everyone else spots immediately.

If you go geocaching in a group, and everyone else has spotted the cache huckle-buckle-beanstalk style, and you're the last one searching, then they'll probably be giving you hotter/colder clues that are intended to help. And their laughter when you trip over the regular size container sitting in the open will confirm that the thing you tripped over was indeed the cache. Just sayin'...

21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And, putting on my CO hat, should I be deleting DNFs logged on my hides when the cache wasn't actually missing, so as not to confuse the poor CHS algorithm?

I would hope that the CHS system was designed in a way that a cache owner merely deleting logs won't improve the score for that cache. I would hope.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, niraD said:

I would hope that the CHS system was designed in a way that a cache owner merely deleting logs won't improve the score for that cache. I would hope.

But I presume it'll happily accept a CO logging an armchair OM after each DNF since, um, that's how it expects you to respond when it sends out its email (the OM, I mean, not the armchair bit, but it can't know the difference).

[+niraD]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But I presume it'll happily accept a CO logging an armchair OM after each DNF since, um, that's how it expects you to respond when it sends out its email (the OM, I mean, not the armchair bit, but it can't know the difference).

Yep. It's up to the CO to monitor armchair logs and... Oh, wait...

[+K13]

From the Guidelines:

 "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”.

The small lettered bit is commentary related to the first sentence. That small bit seems to be the most important things to those who aren't ignorant. Those of us called ignorant are simply following the guideline, as it is written.

 

[+bflentje]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:15 PM, Cacheism 500 said:

  As long as you physically reach GZ* and look (even for a second and then get muggled off)  if you don't find it its a DNF.

 

 * Although I still call these DNFs, tree climbs (say)  where you see the tree and sometimes cache but don't attempt don't universally go down as DNFs, I was once caching as part of a Meetup group who 'agreed' not to log such a tree climb as DNF, not wanting to break group consensus I didnt!

 

   Not reaching GZ and logging DNF is lazy and bad etiquette.

No. Calling me lazy and accusing me of bad scruples when you have no earthly idea how I cache is bad etiquette.

[+bflentje]

20 hours ago, dprovan said:

You're making plenty of sense, but the reason it's been coming up lately is that recently one thing did change: GS introduced an algorithm that uses DNFs as one factor in calculating a number called "cache health score". We don't know how the algorithm uses DNFs, but it undeniably introduces one way that DNFs have a real logic beyond any of our individual choices. I don't claim that leads to any particular conclusion, I just observe that it means it's no longer just an individual decision we can all agree to disagree about.

The most important thing about what they're doing is that it invalidates your otherwise sound claim that as long as you explain what your DNF means in the DNF log, it's not important what it means in general. Whatever the cache health score is doing with DNFs, one thing it isn't doing is reading the DNF logs for nuance.

I refuse to change my DNF habits based on what some think is a poorly designed cache health score system. I will continue to do as I see fit. In the end, if it truly is a poor way to judge the health of a cache, perhaps my habits will help drive us towards a better and more reliable cache health scoring system. If I don't find a cache for ANY circumstance, I log the DNF. And for those that think they're the de facto experts on geocache logging etiquette, I really don't care what you think. ;-)

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

It is, as explicitly stated in guidelines and by their very placement and existence, that is a purpose of the online log. If you post it without that purpose, you can't force some random reader out in the world to not use your log and information about the cache. All of our online logs are by nature informative about the cache - whether we want them to be or not.  Therefore the DNF is not solely a personal note. It can be used as such, but we all have to be aware that its existence implies a state of the cache listing, the details of which are contained within the log text. Which everyone can read.

 

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Again you're trying to assert that when people write their logs they OWE something to other people - and that's not true.

A person can choose to write their logs in ways which might be of value to others - but there's no REQUIREMENT to do so.

No one owe's anyone anything. And I didn't say there's a requirement to log only what is of value to others.

 

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Isn't that what the personal cache note is for?

No.

*blink*

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

You may use personal cache notes whichever way suits you.

They aren't for writing logs.

Correct - singular personal cache notes aren't for writing logs, just as online logs aren't for writing personal notes.  As repeatedly quoted, they "inform cache owners and other finders".  Because they are online. And everyone's online logs are all listed on the cache. For ayone to read.

If I want to create a personal log (one I do not wish others to read), I don't put it online, I put in my own app, or a document, or somewhere that is by nature meant only for me. Because then no one else will read it possibly inferring something I don't mean for them to infer. I understand the difference between personal logs and online logs. The vast majority of them are the same, because I generally don't care to make personal notes that contain content I do not want the public to read; so almost all my logs are one and the same, written knowing that later finders and the CO will read them.  I keep puzzle notes and personal reminders, where desired, offline in my own app. Those are personal logs. Not online logs.  I even have some DNF logs I keep in my app and haven't posted, for reasons I deemed reasonable.

If we post an online log, realize that our content will be read by others. Log types are informative. As is log content. And not merely to the person who posts it. And of course it is not a requirement to be informative in online logs.

[+Mudfrog]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's human nature to resist anything that may require a personal change.   It's much easier to expect everyone else to change around us.    

Silly is claiming you "didn't find the cache" when you never really looked for it in the first place. 

Nope, i'm not resisting change at all. It's always made perfect sense to me, going on 16 years, to log a DNF when i don't find a cache. The CHS may not pick up on the reason my DNF is in place but as i stated above, i don't really care. Except for those that refuse to read logs, i doubt any of my DNFs have ever caused a problem for a cache. If by chance one has caused a trigger, then i'm sure it was easily resolved afterwards.

Rest assured, my DNFs always have included in them, at least a short explanation of why i logged the way i did. Interested parties (cache owner, reviewer, potential finders, curious lookyloos) can read my log to help determine their next action.

Just call me silly. I've been called worse.

 

[+Team Microdot]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

14 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

It is, as explicitly stated in guidelines and by their very placement and existence, that is a purpose of the online log.

I'm going to assume that you understand the difference between a purpose and the purpose.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

20 hours ago, K13 said:

My cache logs are for MY purpose. That purpose is to make note of MY experience finding, or not finding, a particular cache.  IF I find it necessary to inform anyone as to the state of the cache, that is the function of a WN, NM, or NA log type.

I may be ignorant in your eyes, but I am using the log types in the way they are intended to be used.

That was my point.  If the intended purpose of the online log is for the personal record for one posting it, why did GS include  "they inform cache owners and other finders" in the guidelines instead of "they are used for your personal record"?  Although the log makes note of YOUR personal experience finding or not finding a particular cache it conveys that information to other users, mostly the cache owner which can influence how a CO maintains their cache or strategies for future seekers.  

[+Team Microdot]

28 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

That was my point.  If the intended purpose of the online log is for the personal record for one posting it, why did GS include  "they inform cache owners and other finders" in the guidelines instead of "they are used for your personal record"?

Which is the point I made earlier in the thread... purpose is bound to intent.

In the statement cited above, Groundspeak never claimed that the purpose of the online log was to inform cache owners and other finders - they merely claim that it happens. Even that claim makes several assumptions which aren't necessarily true.

[+justintim1999]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Which is why it's fundamentally wrong for the CHS to be pinging caches whose only sin is a few DNFs. If a DNF now truly is the equivalent of a "cache might be missing" NM, they should remove one or the other AND change the guidelines to indicate what action a CO must take in response to a DNF. At the moment, the guidelines are silent on any need for a CO to respond to DNFs, yet they are now penalised through the CHS if they don't.

I've previously given you examples of high difficulty caches (like the D5 observation tower in Newcastle) where DNFs are the norm rather than the exception. Three or four DNFs on a cache like that doesn't mean it should be checked by the owner - if I was the owner of that tower cache, I'd be checking on it if it got three or four finds in a row as I'd be wondering if someone had left it sitting out in the open. Not everything is a P&G!

You obviously don't believe that dnfs can be an indication of a missing cache.   Please don't equate the weight of a single dnf with the weight of a single NM.   You may want people to think that's the case but it isn't.    You keep hammering on the high difficulty caches as if the entire system should be geared toward those.  The fact is they are a small segment of what's currently out there.  so common sense says if your going to try to develop a system to monitor caches your going design it to handle the majority of what's out there and tweak it to cover the others.  as far as I can see that's exactly what GS has done.   Let's say there are about 6 million caches out there today.  If you told me that 5% of them or 300,000 were experiencing a real issue with the CHS and dnf's than I'd say we have a problem.  I haven't seen or heard anything that would make me think that's even remotely the case. 

I'm sure there are some horror stories out there regarding the CHS in it's early days.  If I were the one effected but it I'm sure I'd be a little miffed.   But I wouldn't be trying to discredit something I think is overall a good thing for the game.   

This goes back to a point I've been pushing from the beginning.   Instead of complaining about how the current CHS treats a small minority of caches why not think about changing the way we log (or don't log) so that the current system can better identify where the real problems are?   

[+justintim1999]

16 hours ago, niraD said:

It's much easier to design a system that accommodates the way real people will actually use it.

If only we had a single universally accepted definition for "really looked for it".

I don't think we really need a universally accepted definition.    It's not like loosing your keys and your not quite sure where to start looking.   Why not remove the cords for all the caches out there.  That way you can open up your sock drawer,  rummage around in there for a minute or two and claim a perfectly legitimate dnf.   In most cases the location of a cache is known so I'd think that reaching gz would be a must.  After that it's up to each and every cacher to decide the level of searching necessary to justify posting a dnf.   I don't care if they decide that time was a minute or an hour.    

I'm sure it would be easier to adjust the system than our own habits.   Without some sort of logging perimeters the system will always be flawed.   All the tweaking in the world will never satisfy everyone.     Junk in junk out.

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

This isn't true.

Please enlighten me.

[+Team Microdot]

26 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

16 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

This isn't true.

Please enlighten me.

Let's see if we can maintain some context...

16 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

19 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you understand that the dnf was created as a way to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing than its easy to understand why posting a dnf,  when no actual search occurred,  is a problem.

This isn't true.

The purpose of the DNF log is to record the fact that we Did Not Find the cache rather than to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing.

It may be possible to infer in a probabilistic way the likelihood of a cache being missing based on analysis of DNF logs - but not always.

I tend to follow your approach though of not logging DNF's on caches I haven't actually searched for because it would seem rather pointless. I mean, if I followed that methodology to its logical conclusion I could waste an awful lot of time logging DNF's on the (hundreds of thousands?) of caches out there that I'll never, ever find.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Team Microdot
typo

[+justintim1999]

14 hours ago, niraD said:

Ultimately, I don't think our logging practices matter.

And by "our", I mean those who post in the forums, and those who read the forums, and even anyone else who might be aware of the CHS. We're a tiny fraction of the people who post logs. The vast majority are blissfully unaware of the CHS, and will post what they post no matter how much the CHS is debated here.

They aren't going to change for the CHS. But the CHS could conceivably change for them.

I remember when I started hiding caches.   I would run out and check up on every dnf posted because I wanted to make sure the cache was there so the next person could enjoy it.   10 years later nothings changed.    My point is, even if the CHS didn't exist I'd still be pushing to see the use of dnfs more clearly defined.   

If a new cacher asked you "when should I post a dnf"   what would you tell them?   

[+justintim1999]

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Let's see if we can maintain some context...

The purpose of the DNF log is to record the fact that we Did Not Find the cache rather than to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing.

It may be possible to infer in a probabilistic way the likelihood of a cache being missing based on analysis of DNF logs - but not always.

I tend to follow your approach though of not logging DNF's on caches I haven't actually searched for because it would seem rather pointless. I mean, if I followed that methodology to its logical conclusion I could waste an awful lot of time logging DNF's on the (hundreds of thousands?) of caches out there that I'll never, ever find.

Then why is "possibly missing" still listed by GS as a primary reason why dnfs are logged?   If a dnfs only propose is as a personal record keeping tool than why even mention the possibility of a missing cache in the guidelines?    

[+Team Microdot]

17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Then why is "possibly missing" still listed by GS as a primary reason why dnfs are logged?   If a dnfs only propose is as a personal record keeping tool than why even mention the possibility of a missing cache in the guidelines?    

I wasn't aware that "possibly missing" was listed by GS as a primary reason why DNF's are logged.

Encouragement?

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

16 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The only thing I'm contesting here is your original claim that the purpose of an online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - because it isn't true.

It is, as explicitly stated in guidelines and by their very placement and existence, that is a purpose of the online log.

I'm going to assume that you understand the difference between a purpose and the purpose.

Yes, which I have explicitly addressed. When someone says "No, it is for my personal record", that is contrary to "to inform cache owners and other potential finders."  The public logs are always fundamentally informative to the public - that is their intent, that is why they are posting publicly. Whether one uses it for personal notes (not having the intent to inform the public) is a personal ethic.  Most everyone uses the public log in such a way which recognizes that others read it. OTOH, some app-only users for example may not realize it, and we get some logs with "." or minimal placeholder text, because they use it just as a personal record (knowingly or not). I've even occasionally seen people post logs with spoiler info as if it was literally a personal note, not realizing it was a public log. The issue here is more about posting (or not posting) of logs with zero concern about how others interpret the action; such as this OP - whether or not to log a DNF, or when, or rather a Note, and there's the Find that's not a Find thread, etc.  This guideline is not about people who use their own public logs to also be personally relevant. Every time I post any log it is, for me, a personal record; when I write the content, I'm thinking about my own log history but also the cache listing - because the latter cannot be avoided. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting an online log, I'd make an offline note in my app.

-> So, if you use your online, public log also for personal reference, this is not about you. If you recognize that the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders - just as the guidelines explicitly state - even if you use it for personal records, then this is not about you.  But if you post logs the way you want first, without regard to how others may interpret them in the cache's log history because they are more relevant to you than anyone else, then yes, this is about you.

[+J Grouchy]

33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Then why is "possibly missing" still listed by GS as a primary reason why dnfs are logged?   If a dnfs only propose is as a personal record keeping tool than why even mention the possibility of a missing cache in the guidelines?    

If you're referring to the menu options in the log form, it's not.  It's a option of the 'needs maintenance' menu.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, which I have explicitly addressed. When someone says "No, it is for my personal record", that is contrary to "to inform cache owners and other potential finders."  The public logs are always fundamentally informative to the public - that is their intent, that is why they are posting publicly. Whether one uses it for personal notes (not having the intent to inform the public) is a personal ethic.  Most everyone uses the public log in such a way which recognizes that others read it.

How are logs fundamentally informative to those members of the public who haven't read them? Especially those members of the public who aren't cachers?

So the intent for public logs cannot possibly be to be always fundamentally informative to the public.

I think the problem here in grasping this simple point is your reliance on universal quantifiers.

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How are logs fundamentally informative to those members of the public who haven't read them? Especially those members of the public who aren't cachers?

Oh come on, you understand context. "Everyone" doesn't apply to every person in the world. The existence of the online log is to be read by those who come across them, they cannot be forcefully read. They are in the online history of the cache listing for the cache listing - for the public. If someone doesn't read them, that raison d'etre doesn't change.

19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I think the problem here in grasping this simple point is your reliance on universal quantifiers.

lol sometimes I hate when I get wordy, then I remember it's because of inane nitpicking like this.

Edited February 28, 2018 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

"The intent is to be read by everyone" does not mean "The intent is that every living human person on the face of the planet is intended to read every word of the log text." Grasp context.

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh come on, you understand context. "Everyone" doesn't apply to every person in the world. The existence of the online log is to be read by those who come across them, they cannot be forcefully read. They are in the online history of the cache listing for the cache listing - for the public. If someone doesn't read them, that raison d'etre doesn't change.

 

I read what you write and respond.

I'm not a mind reader - nor do I intend to try to be.

 

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I think the problem here in grasping this simple point is your reliance on universal quantifiers.

lol sometimes I hate when I get wordy, then I remember it's because of inane nitpicking like this.

Seriously?

You make claims which are fundamentally flawed and that's somehow the fault of the person who points it out?

Priceless!

 

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"The intent is to be read by everyone" does not mean "The intent is that every living human person on the face of the planet is intended to read every word of the log text." Grasp context.

Try including context in your posts eh?

[+Mudfrog]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I remember when I started hiding caches.   I would run out and check up on every dnf posted because I wanted to make sure the cache was there so the next person could enjoy it.   10 years later nothings changed.    My point is, even if the CHS didn't exist I'd still be pushing to see the use of dnfs more clearly defined.   

If a new cacher asked you "when should I post a dnf"   what would you tell them?   

I guess you're one of those COs that doesn't read the logs that come in on his caches. Otherwise, you'd know in a heartbeat, that you didn't have to go out and check your cache when a log came in stating something like, "I ran out of time so wasn't able to make it to ground zero to perform a good search".

If a new cacher asked, I'd tell them "when you don't find the cache". I would not even try to set parameters for when he or she believes their search begins. That person has a brain and can determine that for themselves.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"The intent is to be read by everyone" does not mean "The intent is that every living human person on the face of the planet is intended to read every word of the log text." Grasp context.

Try including context in your posts eh?

Thanks for that!

*sigh* Dude, I'm done. Fascinating how tables turn from thread to thread. But not surprised.

ETA: Yes I added this post-comment response because it's off topic and I didn't want to create a new comment to continue it and derail the main thread further: I replaced a signature quote line with a better one specifically because of tangents just like this, interestingly primarily influenced by exchanges with you just like this. Moving on.

 

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I remember when I started hiding caches.   I would run out and check up on every dnf posted because I wanted to make sure the cache was there so the next person could enjoy it.   10 years later nothings changed.    My point is, even if the CHS didn't exist I'd still be pushing to see the use of dnfs more clearly defined.   

If a new cacher asked you "when should I post a dnf"   what would you tell them?   

I guess you're one of those COs that doesn't read the logs that come in on his caches. Otherwise, you'd know in a heartbeat, that you didn't have to go out and check your cache when a log came in stating something like, "I ran out of time so wasn't able to make it to ground zero to perform a good search".

Ditto.

I'd say, "When should I post a DNF?" When you're reasonably sure you made a search but couldn't find it. Or, "Should I check on my cache because of a DNF?" If the DNF log implies there's something wrong with it, or taking other recent logs into consideration you feel there might be something wrong with it.

It's really pretty simple I'd say.  The DNF log is vague enough that it can cover a variety of reasons; so as long as you choose the log type you think is most relevant to your experience, and elaborate in the text for the CO and other finders, then you should be good.  Just remember that some COs can be very very stringent about logs posted to their listing . The only one you have an enforcible right to post is the Found It log, if your signature is the logsheet (that wording is important).  The rest - enh, don't get too uptight about it, just do your best.

Edited February 28, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

53 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

59 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"The intent is to be read by everyone" does not mean "The intent is that every living human person on the face of the planet is intended to read every word of the log text." Grasp context.

Try including context in your posts eh?

Thanks for that!

*sigh* Dude, I'm done. Fascinating how tables turn from thread to thread. But not surprised.

I'm still chuckling at the reliance on universal quanitifiers in your previous post - just can't let 'em go eh?

I do see now though why that line in your sig had to go

Edited February 28, 2018 by Team Microdot
typo

[+justintim1999]

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm going to assume that you understand the difference between a purpose and the purpose.

Sure. 

 

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I wasn't aware that "possibly missing" was listed by GS as a primary reason why DNF's are logged.

Encouragement?

I can't say if it's the primary reason but it's one of two reasons listed in the guidelines.   So I guess it would be a purpose.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

If you're referring to the menu options in the log form, it's not.  It's a option of the 'needs maintenance' menu.

 

 

I found it under log types in the help center.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

I guess you're one of those COs that doesn't read the logs that come in on his caches. Otherwise, you'd know in a heartbeat, that you didn't have to go out and check your cache when a log came in stating something like, "I ran out of time so wasn't able to make it to ground zero to perform a good search".

If a new cacher asked, I'd tell them "when you don't find the cache". I would not even try to set parameters for when he or she believes their search begins. That person has a brain and can determine that for themselves.

I read every one.   I am more interested in the ones where an unsuccessful search was preformed.    Since most of my caches aren't overly difficult I take notice of those.  

I'd think you wouldn't have to explain to them that getting to the parking lot and then turning around and going home isn't really searching but from what I'm reading that may not be as obvious as I'd thought.