Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
itsonlybarney

DNF Etiquette

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JSCYYJ said:

'm wondering what the opinion is on a situation I found myself in recently.

Personally, if I search (not just walk or drive by due to muggles or other problems, if I don't find a cache (litter doesn't count) and I don't sign a log, then it's a DNF. I had the problem yesterday as a matter of fact.

Share this post


Link to post

I would have logged an DNF and NM. If there was a complete container identifiable as a cache but just missing the log I would leave a slip of paper with a sig on it and log Found It + NM. I have seen discarded food containers logged as finds - sheesh.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JSCYYJ said:

I'm wondering what the opinion is on a situation I found myself in recently. I found the cache but, it was only the lid of a lock and lock. The clues made me think it was a possibility that was all I was to find so I logged it as Found. But, once I got home and looked at pictures it seemed like it was supposed to be a complete lock and lock with a log. I'm conflicted if I should change my log to a DNF. 

I'd log a DNF (and a NM) for a piece of a container, for camouflage without the container, for an attachment mechanism without a container, or anything like that.

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks everyone for your advice. I'm leaning towards DNF as well. It sucks when I have a cache I'm working towards that requires an extremely long streak to log. But, I'd rather be accurate with my logs and luckily I'm just a month into my streak. So not too many days lost.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, JSCYYJ said:

To answer the original question. I log a DNF if I've gone to GZ and made an effort to search. I don't really put a time limit on it. I would probably not log anything if I walked up to GZ and had been there for 1-2 minutes before muggles or something else caused me to have to stop my search. In that case yes I did not find it but, I didn't really do a real search.

I'm wondering what the opinion is on a situation I found myself in recently. I found the cache but, it was only the lid of a lock and lock. The clues made me think it was a possibility that was all I was to find so I logged it as Found. But, once I got home and looked at pictures it seemed like it was supposed to be a complete lock and lock with a log. I'm conflicted if I should change my log to a DNF. 

I think keep it as Found since I did find it even though I wasn't able to sign a log and the cache wasn't complete and return at a later date when it's repaired to sign. But, I can also see a DNF being a response since I didn't sign a log and the cache wasn't complete.

A DNF and a NM sounds about right.   DNF says you didn't actually find the cache and sign the log.   NM let's the cache owner know you think they should check up on it.   In you're NM log try to give the owner as much info as you can about what you did find and where.     

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

What is NM? I can't find it in the glossary. I assume it means Not-something. Note (to) Myself doesn't sound right, if it goes to the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Lorien99 said:

What is NM? I can't find it in the glossary. I assume it means Not-something. Note (to) Myself doesn't sound right, if it goes to the cache owner.

 

Needs Maintenance - the log type you would submit when you believe that the cache needs some attention from its owner because, for example, the container is broken.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, TrulyCacher said:

And what is the CACHE OWNER’s etiquette for a DNF?

Recently an owner deleted my DNF log, which was the first in a string of several DNFs. 

 

Possible I guess that they thought your DNF is what drew the others to pile on.    :)

You don't say what your wording was in your log, so maybe there might be an "other" side too.   This is the forums...   :D

We know a few who delete DNF after they do maintenance,  claiming they're "cleaning up" their cache page. 

I feel it's just hiding the fact they've had issues...

Share this post


Link to post

I'd almost never delete a DNF log on one of my caches.  It's part of the history of the cache.  I have had a DNF deleted once.  I was going for the FTF from a newer cacher and they hadn't put out the cache when it was published, hence my DNF.  I don't know why they did it (unless they didn't want it "stained" with a DNF) and never heard back from them.  The cache is long gone.  I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind such an action (unless it was obscene or a personal attack type log).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I'd almost never delete a DNF log on one of my caches.  It's part of the history of the cache. 

 

Curious what the reason was for the one(s) you did.   Thanks.  :)

 

One CO nearby was enough of a micro-manager that they deleted DNF logs of cachers that found their hide on a later date.

 - I would have thought that decision should be up to the finder, who may want to keep their caching history. 

They later said that it was to show others that the cache was indeed still there, but any future finders would have done that...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrulyCacher said:

And what is the CACHE OWNER’s etiquette for a DNF? Recently an owner deleted my DNF log, which was the first in a string of several DNFs.

That's rude, plain and simple.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO deleted my DNF on a cache I subsequently found, I'd likely delete my find log, remove any FP I'd given and blacklist their other caches. A DNF is an account of my unsuccessful search (often pretty comical in hindsight), not a criticism of the cache or a report on its status, and is a memorable part of my caching history.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrulyCacher said:

And what is the CACHE OWNER’s etiquette for a DNF? Recently an owner deleted my DNF log, which was the first in a string of several DNFs. As a cacher, I think it’s a courtesy to log a DNF because it alerts the owner to a POSSIBLE container missing (and also gives me a note to check back to find it later). But in this instance, the cache owner didn’t like that mine was the first of several DNFs, and my log was deleted, no one else’s was. His maintenance check notes just said “look harder”, so it’s unclear if it was even physically checked, despite NEEDS MAINTENANCE logs going back a year saying container was damaged and falling apart. Doesn’t seem like good game play to me for an owner to delete a DNF that is appropriately logged

Many people WON'T be the first to log a DNF, as they are scared or something :rolleyes:, until someone else comes along and logs a needed DNF. An example; I logged a DNF on a cache in NZ that hadn't had a log for six months (previous to that the cache would get several a month), but as soon as I did log the first DNF a string of DNFs followed mine very shortly after. I did the maths and based on past logging numbers, up to 20 people had been too scaredy-cat to log a DNF.

Has the cache been maintained since your DNF log? Has the cache been checked? If not, log a NA after one month from your NM. Even if the CO deletes your NA the reviewer can see it. Don't let them get away with their childish behaviour. That is, if you wrote a polite NM and there isn't something else to this. Perhaps show us what you wrote.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious what the reason was for the one(s) you did.   Thanks.

 

I actually haven't but if obscenities were written or something along a personal attack was offered up in the log, I'd probably consider doing it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, TrulyCacher said:

I said “the container seems to be missing. Perhaps it needs a check from the CO.” Very standard.

If that's all that was said, there is nothing wrong with that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, TrulyCacher said:

I said “the container seems to be missing. Perhaps it needs a check from the CO.”


Lately won’t say in my log that it’s missing even if I’ve been there before and found it.  I mention that in my log that I found it before, but not today.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kunarion said:
1 hour ago, TrulyCacher said:

I said “the container seems to be missing. Perhaps it needs a check from the CO.”


Lately won’t say in my log that it’s missing even if I’ve been there before and found it.  I mention that in my log that I found it before, but not today.  

 

For me, if I want to say the cache might be missing and ask the CO to check on it, I'd use the canned "This geocacher reported that the cache might be missing" NM log. After all, that's what it's there for, isn't it? My DNF logs are just about my unsuccessful attempt at finding it. Likewise, if someone wanted me to check on one of my hides, I'd really prefer them to use an NM so it will stand out from the mundane "swarms of mosquitoes" and "snakes on the track" DNFs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Lately won’t say in my log that it’s missing even if I’ve been there before and found it.  

I mention that in my log that I found it before, but not today.  

Yep.

We don't say it's missing, usually say it's probably me, and just didn't find it.  That's what that log is for.   ;)

 - Maybe jokingly adding that I have a tough time finding anything smaller than a 30cal, JIC the CO's got issues.   

 

On our first hide, one went with another and DNF with,  "I went to this site with an experienced cacher, he had found this treasure in the past, however it was not in the location in which he had found it."

 Didn't log a NM in addition,  so my reply was  "Well, seems they mustn't have even turned the GPS ON, or they would have seen it was moved 300' TWO YEARS after their "experienced cacher" found it."   :D

We're friends with the cacher mentioned,  guess they played "warm ... warmer..." with the new person all day.  :)

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, TrulyCacher said:

I said “the container seems to be missing. Perhaps it needs a check from the CO.” Very standard. 

You have no idea whether the container is missing. All you know is that you can't find it.

 

That's no excuse for deleting your dnf, of course. I'm just saying there is a little room for improvement in your phrasing.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/12/2020 at 1:16 PM, TrulyCacher said:

But in this instance, the cache owner didn’t like that mine was the first of several DNFs, and my log was deleted, no one else’s was. His maintenance check notes just said “look harder”, so it’s unclear if it was even physically checked,

My DNF log didn’t say it was missing and didn’t say it needed maintenance because I don’t know that either of those cases are accurate. 18 months of logs preceding mine were FOUND logs and noted deteriorating condition (container broken, log wet, cover broken, cover missing, log missing...) Mine was just the first DNF log, then a string of several DNFs followed mine, but my log was the only one deleted. Since there were 1-1/2 years of prior FOUND logs noting problems and no maintenance check from the owner, I didn’t word my DNF more gently than “SEEMS to be missing“ and “PERHAPS needs to be checked”. The DNFs following my log were worded essentially the same way (e.g., “nowhere to be found”; “searched a 50+ ft radius”; “Needs maintenance from the CO”) but those logs were not removed 🤷‍♂️ Again my question was about cache owner etiquette on deleting DNFs. I would have considered this action a cleanup after a maintenance check, however the DNFs by cachers after me - even ones with the same words - were not removed

Edited by TrulyCacher

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrulyCacher said:


My DNF log didn’t say it was missing and didn’t say it needed maintenance because I don’t know that either of those cases are accurate. Mine was just the first DNF log, then a string of several DNFs followed mine, but my log was the only one deleted. 

 

This is different from what you posted earlier:

 

23 hours ago, TrulyCacher said:

The wording in my DNF log was benign, DEFINITELY no obscenities! Geocaching is a family activity!. I said “the container seems to be missing. Perhaps it needs a check from the CO.” Very standard. 

 

The canned NM log I recommended using in that scenario states "This geocacher reported that the cache might be missing" and, like all NMs, is a request for the CO to check on it. How is this any different from what you said you said in your DNF?

 

As I said before, if anyone were to think one of my hides might be missing and would like me to check on it, I'd much prefer that to be done in an NM so it will catch my attention. I won't bite their head off, instead I'll thank them and go check on the cache. If it's not missing, great, nothing more for me to do and the searcher can have another crack at it, but if it is missing I'll disable it, thank them again for drawing my attention to it and decide what needs to be done to stop it going missing next time (or archive it). Is that so bad?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

You have no idea whether the container is missing. All you know is that you can't find it.

 

That's no excuse for deleting your dnf, of course. I'm just saying there is a little room for improvement in your phrasing.

Even if it could have been worded differently, basically there was nothing rude or wrong about the words that were shown here. I have had DNFs on my caches with similar wording. I don't take any offence, except to roll my eyes at the beginners who write something like, "I couldn't find the cache. It's missing." And I don't delete their log. Usually it's not missing. I leave it for future finders to have a snicker at.

Share this post


Link to post

I had one CO delete my DNF and when I asked why they did it (by message) they denied they had, so I sent them a copy of the email saying deleted by CO. They still denied it and got aggressive. There are some people who are just weird and do unlogical things. Annoying, but there's no getting around them.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

I deleted a DNF on one of my caches once.  It was posted on a D1 hide by a multi-1,000 finder from out-of-state.  The post was snarky to a point just short of abusive.  I had never encountered a post like it.  I was certain that the cache had been muggled (after all it was a multi-1,000 finder), but upon visiting the GZ, I discovered that cache was right where it should have been.

I really hated seeing the log (not the DNF) every time I looked at my own cache page, and, at the time, I thought I had few choices: (1) Just post an “It’s still there” Note; (2) post an “It’s still there, you blowhard” Note, or (3) delete it so I wouldn’t have to read it again, and post an “It’s still there” note.  (I didn’t know about encrypting at the time.)  

Regretfully, I chose (3).  I received a couple obnoxious emails from the cacher, which I ignored.  Never encountered someone like that before.  Hope I never do.  I don’t think he’s been in the area again; I never saw any posts by him since, but it’s not like I searching for them.  

In hindsight, I should have used (1) and simply moved on.  Choice (2) would have been a little more satisfying, too.  I doubt that the cacher was ever returned to the area.

Live and learn.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Joe_L said:

I deleted a DNF on one of my caches once.  It was posted on a D1 hide by a multi-1,000 finder from out-of-state.  The post was snarky to a point just short of abusive.  I had never encountered a post like it.  I was certain that the cache had been muggled (after all it was a multi-1,000 finder), but upon visiting the GZ, I discovered that cache was right where it should have been.

I really hated seeing the log (not the DNF) every time I looked at my own cache page, and, at the time, I thought I had few choices: (1) Just post an “It’s still there” Note; (2) post an “It’s still there, you blowhard” Note, or (3) delete it so I wouldn’t have to read it again, and post an “It’s still there” note.  (I didn’t know about encrypting at the time.)  

Regretfully, I chose (3).  I received a couple obnoxious emails from the cacher, which I ignored.  Never encountered someone like that before.  Hope I never do.  I don’t think he’s been in the area again; I never saw any posts by him since, but it’s not like I searching for them.  

In hindsight, I should have used (1) and simply moved on.  Choice (2) would have been a little more satisfying, too.  I doubt that the cacher was ever returned to the area.

Live and learn.

 

 

 

Joe

 

There are some abusive people out there. And they won't (just WON'T) change their find to a DNF, or even a note. A cacher found a dropped  lost lunch box 20 metres from my 1.5D (and a very easy 1.5D too, as it's the only pile of rock in an open space). They logged a find, but said the box was empty. The cache was checked and the cache with its contents were still there in good condition; safe in its very obvious hide, 20 metres from the lost lunch box. I told them they hadn't found it and could they please change their log to a DNF. They refused, but said they would visit soon and sign the log. Then I went on a long holiday and didn't return for three months. Only then did I remember their log and checked the cache. No, they had never signed the log. I contacted them again. My message and their rude reply below.

I now see the CO has had their account locked, so they must have upset others too, who reported them. I didn't report them, as I couldn't be bothered to.

My complete message to them after four months; nothing not included. (I normally wouldn't copy a private message to here, but I have not named them, and their rudeness doesn't deserve respect.

 

I have been to check the log and I still have not found your signature there. (In case I am wrong with this and I missed seeing your signature, I have included a photograph of the logs for you to check.) You need to remove your log, as you haven't found the cache. I'm sorry, but a find can't be claimed unless the log is signed. When you can revisit and sign the log, then you can log a find.
Regards Goldenwattle.

 

Their response:

Hey mate, I told you before, I don't live in canberra but planned to put things to rights next time I'm there. If that's not good enough for you then you can delete the log yourself. But know this, if you attended your cache as well as you attend your online logs then this wouldn't have happened. GZ was a disgusting pig sty when we were there AND there was an empty box at the site as is attested to by your own friend, so don't take your anal retentive frustration out on us.

 

The place was not a pigsty, unless you count the dropped lunch box. Maybe there was a discarded piece of paper or two, as it's beside a main road. There might even have been some dropped leaves and bark from the nearby large gum tree :rolleyes:. But definitely no pigsty. Here is the cache; proving I do do maintenance; although that one has a descent sized log and won't fill for awhile. GC64K6J

 

My reply back:

Hey mate,
Are you always this rude! I did patiently give you a chance to set things right, but it's almost four months ago. The empty box was quite a distance from the cache, and I can't help if you can't navigate to GZ. It is not a disgusting pigsty. One dropped lunch box does not make a pigsty. I might have considered leaving the logs alone, but after the rude reply, so be it, I'm deleting them. I don't know what was so difficult for you to alter your logs to DNF and then log finds when you actually found GZ.

 

I then deleted their log. Four months gees; and I'm impatient!

 

Anyway this cacher's account has now been locked, so they won't worry anyone else, unless they have started a new account.

 

Added: By the way, their find numbers compared to their trackable numbers.

found.png 1,702 Caches Found  trackable.png 7447 Trackables Logged
Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post

Just a little real-world anecdote to add to the discussion here. On the 27th of February I had some minor day surgery done so in the weeks leading up to that I visited many of my caches, including a D2/T2.5 traditional in bushland on the outskirts of Gosford. But on the 1st of March, two days after my surgery, I received this DNF on it:

 

image.png.6cb79784acf75f3c8e38fc7c974ee405.png

 

Obviously I was in no condition to go and check on it but I didn't want to disable it either because, as a D2, it's a little tricky to find, has had 4 previous DNFs in its almost five years of life and has never gone missing.

 

Two and a half weeks on and I'm now well enough to go out there, so I did this morning and, sure enough, the cache is fine. I have no qualms about the DNF - obviously they went looking for it and didn't find it so it's genuine enough and they didn't make any claims about its likelihood of being missing - but the one thing I would like to mention is that it would have been helpful, if only for my own peace of mind, if they could have provided a bit more detail about their unsuccessful search, ideally enough for me to tell whether they were actually looking in the right place.

 

So please, log those DNFs but, if you can, say a bit more than "no luck today". The CO will likely appreciate it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

but the one thing I would like to mention is that it would have been helpful, if only for my own peace of mind, if they could have provided a bit more detail about their unsuccessful search, ideally enough for me to tell whether they were actually looking in the right place.

You could have sent them a message asking for this info. You request this, but other cache owners might consider more detail to be a spoiler and NOT appreciate the extra detail!

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TriciaG said:

You could have sent them a message asking for this info. You request this, but other cache owners might consider more detail to be a spoiler and NOT appreciate the extra detail!

 

It's not black or white, there's plenty of scope for providing a bit more detail in a DNF without spoiling anything. Here's one of my recent DNF logs as an example of what I mean:

 

image.png.f2d88be5b14526d96e26da859999386f.png

 

Plenty of detail about my (mis)adventure but nothing that gives the cache location away, which would be difficult as I still don't know exactly where the cache is hidden, only that it was on the side of the creek I couldn't get to. But the CO reading that shouldn't be concerned about the state of their cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Everybody has their opinion, Here is mine:

 

The purpose of logging a cache is to share your experience. That's the reason for a DNF log type. A DNF goes to the CO only. A NA goes to the both the CO and the  reviewer. In recent years, absent need archive logs, Multiple DNF logs has become a red flag to local reviewers to begin the process of communicating with the CO to re-verify the game piece is still in place.  This is a necessary process to ensure the game is viable and not frustrating. If you like searching for something that isn't there, let me know and I'll send you the coordinates to a non existent $100 bill to search for. This is mistakenly seen as the process of archiving the cache. Nothing cold be further from the truth.

 

 

I believe the reluctance to log DNFs is twofold:

 

1.  Nobody wants to have their DNF sandwiched between two " quick and easy find" logs.

2. As multiple DNF logs has become a red flag to begin the communication process, people don't want to be perceived as the DNF that killed a cache. The simple truth is, without DNFs and found it logs, neither  the reviewer nor the CO have any electronic way of verifying the hide is still in place.  

 

I believe the best remedy for this situation is to log each visit you make. If you log a DNF, take the time to share your experience. Did you search for 30 minutes with a squad of 12 experienced cachers, or pop out for 30 seconds and get chased off by a muggle drinking coffee at GZ? Is there evidence of recent activity such as landscaping., tree removal, etc? Your details may mean less to you than to the CO, who will be able to evaluate whether your DNF means it isn't there or you were simply not looking in the right place.  If you didn't find the hide. by definition you can't post a spoiler.IMHO, if a CO tends to their cache, reviewing logs as they come in and moving to check, maintain, or temporarily disable caches until they can perform maintenance, there is little danger of archival of viable caches.  By all means take an interest in the caches near your home coordinates. If you log a DNF, check on the web page periodically and see if additional logs have been entered.

 

I recently logged a NA on a cache that hadn't been found in well over a year. The hint indicated the cache was at the base of a tree. The nearest I could approach was 120 feet, because GZ was in 12 feet of water in the middle of a stormwater pond. Obviously the cache was no longer present and the CO needed to either move the cache or archive it. There were several previous DNF logs. I logged a NA describing the details above that led to my decision. The local reviewer stepped in promptly.  Usually the CO will respond to a string of DNFs with an owner maintenance log verifying the cache is still there. Unfortunately, there is a small number of COs that place hides and then leave the game, leaving nobody to maintain the hide. That's when reviewers are forced to step in and ultimately archive the hide if no response is received from the CO.

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ras_oscar said:

A DNF goes to the CO only.

Well, ALL logs go to the CO and the community.  The CO is notified of all of them (also individuals who Watch a listing), reviewers are notified of NA (to my knowledge, IANAR). But everyone can read the log history.

A DNF is readable by everyone, so it's not meant only for the CO. Many API apps may also give a brief summary of recent log types where that blue icon (and others like a red) really stands out from yellow smileys.  But when searching for a cache and seeking tips or info, DNF logs can be extremely informative, even without spoilers.

 

Point being, don't log a DNF thinking it's "only for the CO".  As a cache finder, I appreciate seeing DNFs in the log history, and I can decide how 'relevant' any particular attempt was to my current attempt to find it.

 

My intended audience for logging a DNF is a close tie between the CO and the next few geocachers, then myself 3rd, then reviewers last.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

In recent years, absent need archive logs, Multiple DNF logs has become a red flag to local reviewers to begin the process of communicating with the CO to re-verify the game piece is still in place.  This is a necessary process to ensure the game is viable and not frustrating. If you like searching for something that isn't there, let me know and I'll send you the coordinates to a non existent $100 bill to search for.

 

And this is part of the problem with reading too much into DNFs.  In Jeff's example, he couldn't get to the other side of the creek to look for the cache.  What if the next 3 DNFs are all for the same reason?  Why should a CO need to provide verification for a cache that no one could get to properly to give the cache a look?  The CHS doesn't take that into account and unless the reviewer reads the cache page (which I hope they do but realize they may not have the time to do, depending on the state of their area), they won't take it into account either.  Rather than a community initiated NM then NA (if no action taken), we're relying on reviewers to initiate the dialogue with the CO that we should be initiating.  They shouldn't be the ones that start this process; our fellow community members should be.

 

There's a reason we have a "Cache might be missing" option under the "Report a problem".  Problem is, COs seem to take it personally and community members don't want to file it, even when it should be filed.  They know that eventually it will be addressed by a reviewer.  It doesn't need to wait for reviewer action.  Let the reviewers act upon our actions, as things were originally designed.  Caching involves 3 parties - a hider, a finder, and the listing service.  The reviewer is acting as the intermediary agent between GS and the hider that determines that the cache meets the guidelines in order to be an actively listed cache on the site.  Any failure on the part of the hider to maintain the listing to the appropriate guidelines is grounds for removal of that particular cache from the active listing service.  The only way this works effectively is if the finders offer continual feedback to the CO via their logs - found, DNF, NM, NA, or note - and the CO takes appropriate actions to correct any issues.  Failure to do so prevents the CO from realizing their cache might need some attention.  Due to an apparent problem with unmaintained caches (due to the lack of proper logs being filed by finders or a CO not actively monitoring their cache), the listing service is asking reviewers to make judgment calls based on the inaccurate or uninformative logs that finders post or the lack of action by a CO.  If we, as finders, provide the appropriate feedback using the tools we have at our disposal, then the reviewer won't need to make any judgment calls because the lack of action on a CO's part is automatic grounds for the reviewer to take action.  If the CO takes action, then the cache is maintained and things go on as they should.

 

2 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

By all means take an interest in the caches near your home coordinates. If you log a DNF, check on the web page periodically and see if additional logs have been entered.

 

It's the next cacher's prerogative to determine whether or not their DNF, taken with my previous DNF and/or any previous DNFs or previous issues, should warrant the appropriate NM or NA log.  It's the CO's responsibility to take an interest in their cache(s).  EVERY cacher should be aware of the tools available to them to help keep caches in good shape (and still in play) and not be afraid to file them when needed.  COs should realize that cachers filing the appropriate logs are just doing what they should and that it's not some personal attack on their status as a CO.  I'll follow up with the appropriate NA log if I file the NM log and no one else has ventured out to either verify my DNF and NM log or actually find the cache but I'm not going to actively monitor the caches I log a DNF on.  

 

2 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

I recently logged a NA on a cache that hadn't been found in well over a year. The hint indicated the cache was at the base of a tree. The nearest I could approach was 120 feet, because GZ was in 12 feet of water in the middle of a stormwater pond. Obviously the cache was no longer present and the CO needed to either move the cache or archive it. There were several previous DNF logs.

 

I have an island cache that is unavailable during high waters (even to some extent slightly above average waters) but it's chained to the tree, not lying loose on the ground.  The closest you can get is about 50 feet.  It gets found infrequently, the last 2 finds within a day of each other, but the previous find being 4 years earlier and that one being 2 years since the last find.  Poison ivy is rampant during the summer months and even a regular rain in any season (but particularly spring and summer) makes this one a pain to get to safely, which is part of why it doesn't get found that often.  The other part is that it's a puzzle cache.  It gets occasional DNFs as well.  As the CO, I'd be a little perturbed that a seeker that couldn't get to the island would first file the NA log before the NM log, despite their inability to get to GZ.  I understand your reasoning behind why you filed the NA log but you assumed that the cache wasn't there but couldn't verify that because you couldn't get to GZ.  What if it were chained to the tree or secured in some manner to make sure it didn't float away during high water?  You (or any of the other previous DNFs) didn't file the initial NM log stating that it might be missing (and providing the details that support your conclusion) so that the CO could check it out.  Give them 30 days (or whatever time you deem is needed) and then follow up with the NA log.  From the time the NM log is filed, a lack of action on the CO's part to verify the cache is OK is just a solid case for the archival of the cache once the NA log is filed.

 

2 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

Unfortunately, there is a small number of COs that place hides and then leave the game, leaving nobody to maintain the hide. That's when reviewers are forced to step in and ultimately archive the hide if no response is received from the CO.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why this is unfortunate as it happens all the time, even to those that have been caching for quite some time.  Life happens and people lose the ability to do what is needed to keep things in good shape (for whatever reasons).  Don't let reviewers be the ones that have to determine if the DNFs possibly mean the cache might be missing.  Let them act upon your actions, not have to make a judgment as to the possible condition (missing, needs maintenance, just fine) of a cache.  File the NM log, watch for CO response, file the NA log if no action taken, and then the reviewer's job is made much simpler and involves a lot less judgment on their part about the cache itself as the lack of a CO's action is grounds for archival all by itself.  Don't be the type of cacher that waits for a reviewer to take action.  Use the tools we have available but, for some reason, are reluctant to use.  We all tend to blame the CO for a lack of maintenance on their cache but seekers are just as much to blame if they don't provide the appropriate feedback to the CO, using the tools at our disposal.  Those nasty caches that L0ne.R always posts get that way because the CO didn't take care of it AND seekers didn't file the appropriate logs that would, in the case of inaction by the CO, get the cache archived by a reviewer, sooner rather than later. 

 

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

In recent years, absent need archive logs, Multiple DNF logs has become a red flag to local reviewers to begin the process of communicating with the CO to re-verify the game piece is still in place.

I'd argue with your cause and effect order. In my area, at least, NAs were common until reviewers started taking action based on DNFs, and only then did people stop posting NAs.

 

3 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

If you like searching for something that isn't there, let me know and I'll send you the coordinates to a non existent $100 bill to search for.

If it bothers you to search for something that isn't there, then geocaching isn't the game for you. There's always a first person to search for a cache that has gone missing. Nothing can change that, and I think it's detrimental to the game to pretend otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

I believe the reluctance to log DNFs is twofold:

From what I've seen, the reluctance to log DNFs is entirely cultural. All the serious geocachers in my area log DNFs when they can't find the cache. I've never noticed the casual geocachers being very shy about it, either, although I'm sure there are some that don't, and that doesn't really concern me. To be honest, I'm always a little puzzled when people from other places talk about it being common for people to not file their DNFs. Even with the reviewers swooping down on caches with a couple DNFs, everyone still seems it's more important to tell everyone else that they couldn't find it and not worry about how the reviewers will react.

 

It's kinda sad you think there are people that can't laugh at themselves when their DNF comes between two easy find logs. If you think you know someone like that, you should definitely remind them that they're geocaching so they can enjoy themselves, not so they can compare themselves to other people. Failure is an every day occurrence in geocaching, so if someone finds it embarrassing, they're not going to have much fun in this game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, TerraViators said:

I'm relatively impatient.  I move to greener pastures after a few minutes tops.

 

I won't log a DNF if I don't feel I gave it a thorough search. If I think I could have easily missed it but time or other reasons had me leave early, I might post a note, or just move on as if I wasn't there at all. But I think I've done what was necessary to find the cache and failed, I'll log the DNF, regardless of whether I think it was there and outwitted me or missing. It's relevant to the next finder, and to the CO.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I won't log a DNF if I don't feel I gave it a thorough search. If I think I could have easily missed it but time or other reasons had me leave early, I might post a note, or just move on as if I wasn't there at all. But I think I've done what was necessary to find the cache and failed, I'll log the DNF, regardless of whether I think it was there and outwitted me or missing. It's relevant to the next finder, and to the CO.

I can understand that some people feel there's some minimal effort to warrant a DNF log, but I log a DNF if I didn't find it. If there's something marginal about my search, I'll mention it in the text. I don't mind others doing it differently, but for me, the only logical way to log a DNF is with a DNF log. That's one of the reasons I don't like reviewers acting on DNFs, especially since I've seen many cases where it was obvious the reviewer didn't actually read the logs to see the clear indications that no action is required. But there's nothing I can do about it if reviewers insist on misusing the logs I'm posting for the benefit of the CO and other seekers.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I can understand that some people feel there's some minimal effort to warrant a DNF log, but I log a DNF if I didn't find it. If there's something marginal about my search, I'll mention it in the text.

 

Sure, and when I said "I won't log a DNF if I don't feel I gave it a thorough search" I mean in situations such as - if I'm walking by, check the map and spot a high D cache on the fence line a few meters ahead, decide to spend 20 seconds and check obvious places in a cursory scan, but can't stop to check for hidden sneaky places, I'd likely not log a DNF; possibly a note, or nothing. Who knows. My point was DNF is the default if I don't find it, but there is a place for case by case judging. But the bigger point was that the DNF log is informative for followup finders as well as the cache owner. :) If I don't think whatever I did is relevant to anyone else, I won't log anything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 9:50 AM, thebruce0 said:

My intended audience for logging a DNF is a close tie between the CO and the next few geocachers, then myself 3rd, then reviewers last.

One of the reasons I felt comfortable posting a NA is precisely because in the last 12 months there were several DNF logs.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

One of the reasons I felt comfortable posting a NA is precisely because in the last 12 months there were several DNF logs.

 

This is one of the reasons two things some people don't like have begun occurring:

* Cache Health Score would raise this cache to the attention of reviewers

* Reviewers may be proactive and take action on the listing and/or the cache owner to ensure the cache is still viable, without a NM/NA log

The intent is:

* Cache owners will go and verify that the cache is still findable despite 12 months of DNF logs

* Absent cache owners will have their abandoned cache listings archived (whether their still-owned physical containers are in good condition or not)

and precisely because the log history paints a picture of what the hunt for the cache will be like, and if it's not good, it should be dealt with one way or another.

 

Best case: These are legitimate DNF logs and the cache is that hard to find. For the comfort of finders, the CO should be occasionally double checking it's still findable. A note or OM log would help quell the doubt and concern raised by 12 months of straight DNFs - regardless of the cache difficulty.

Worst case: The cache is missing - but who will know except the cache owner? Thus, they'd need to visit it and check on it. But after a year of DNFs, they probably don't care. And since no one is posting a NM (how would anyone else know its condition?) it'll stay that way until either the CO deals with it or a reviewer steps in.

 

Some people feel that posting a NA in this case without visiting the cache location is a prudent response. Others disagree. I think it's a grey area that would really depend on the specific cache's situation. (In this case I may be fine with it on 12 months of DNFs for a D1.5, for example, but not on a 5D puzzle with no coordinate checker).

 

I might be of the mind to check with the owner and ask if they'd check on the cache to make sure it's there. If they do but insist on not posting an OM log as confirmation, I might post a note to let people know the CO verified it. Sure it's kind of calling out the CO (and they might delete the Note) but the whole point is merely to comfort the community that despite so many DNFs the cache is still findable -- and the cache owner is active.

 

 

All that to say... going from a DNF straight to a NA, for me, would only happen in extreme circumstances (like 12 months of DNFs on a low D cache, maybe). But I would be surprised (in my region) if the cache hasn't already gained the attention of a reviewer (c/o proaction or the CHS).  Otherwise I'd either log a NM after visiting the cache myself, or a Note, or else sit back and let others more closely related deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Some people feel that posting a NA in this case without visiting the cache location is a prudent response. Others disagree. I think it's a grey area that would really depend on the specific cache's situation. (In this case I may be fine with it on 12 months of DNFs for a D1.5, for example, but not on a 5D puzzle with no coordinate checker).

 

 

er… I do not believe it is ever appropriate to log a DNF or a NA unless i have actually arrived at GZ and conducted a thorough search. Similarly I do not believe  it is ever appropriate to log a NM unless I have found the cache and can intelligently describe the cache condition.

 

 

Edited by ras_oscar
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

I do not believe it is ever appropriate to log a DNF or a NA unless i have actually arrived at GZ and conducted a thorough search. Similarly I do not believe  it is ever appropriate to log a NM unless I have found the cache and can intelligently describe the cache condition.

 

Excellent

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

Similarly I do not believe  it is ever appropriate to log a NM unless I have found the cache and can intelligently describe the cache condition.


Yet, there is a canned “Cache might be missing” NM response to go with a DNF...

 

EC0E6643-6ECC-48CB-9444-EA5B4AE6988F.jpeg.48e10fddee359911dae6e5db5e08ee70.jpeg

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

er… I do not believe it is ever appropriate to log a DNF or a NA unless i have actually arrived at GZ and conducted a thorough search. Similarly I do not believe  it is ever appropriate to log a NM unless I have found the cache and can intelligently describe the cache condition.

What about situations where GZ is clearly inside a fenced-off construction zone, and you can't get to GZ? (Yeah, I've logged NM without visiting GZ in those situations.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

What about situations where GZ is clearly inside a fenced-off construction zone, and you can't get to GZ? (Yeah, I've logged NM without visiting GZ in those situations.)


I encountered a similar situation a couple of days ago.  The forested area that once had the cache has been razed, and all the trees bulldozed into a pile.  Even though GZ was 270 feet out into the freshly plowed dirt, I logged “Needs Archived”.  It ain’t in its spot anymore, and next year, that place will be an office park or something.

 

Anyway, I did no search of GZ.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, niraD said:

What about situations where GZ is clearly inside a fenced-off construction zone, and you can't get to GZ? (Yeah, I've logged NM without visiting GZ in those situations.)

 

 

14 minutes ago, kunarion said:


I encountered a similar situation a couple of days ago.  The forested area that once had the cache has been razed, and all the trees bulldozed into a pile.  Even though GZ was 270 feet out into the freshly plowed dirt, I logged “Needs Archived”.  It ain’t in its spot anymore, and next year, that place will be an office park or something.

 

Anyway, I did no search of GZ.

 

To both of you, I would posit that you in fact HAVE visited GZ if you have first-hand knowledge of the problem.

 

If you get close and see that lightning has struck and the tree's now a smokin' hole at the middle of a 100 foot crater, then you've arrived at the feature that, for all intents and purposes IS GZ: the crater.  Go ahead and log your NM or NA.

 

If you see widespread flooding across what you know is the exact spot, then you've reached the local feature: the flood. Log away.

 

If, however, you hear that a river two states away has swollen over its banks, then mind your own business. Let the locals handle it.  "But," you say, "what if none of them steps up and reports it?", to which I reply, "YOU'RE TWO STATES AWAY! You cannot possibly believe you have a dog in that fight!"

 

There are aspects of being a Cache Cop beyond reporting guideline infractions. Helpful is helpful, bit it's not your responsibility to ensure anyone else's experience.

 

If you weren't there, it hasn't affected YOU. Put your OCD back into your cachebag, go outside and play.

 

----------------

Edited to add: niraD & Kunarion - that came off a little harsh, but I was actually supporting your positions!

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, ras_oscar said:

er… I do not believe it is ever appropriate to log a DNF or a NA unless i have actually arrived at GZ and conducted a thorough search. Similarly I do not believe  it is ever appropriate to log a NM unless I have found the cache and can intelligently describe the cache condition.

What about situations where GZ is clearly inside a fenced-off construction zone, and you can't get to GZ? (Yeah, I've logged NM without visiting GZ in those situations.)

 

Yeah I think the wording is better if it implies understanding not that you were physically at the coordinates necessary but "I won't log a NM unless I attempted the cache first-hand" or "..unless I made every expected effort to get to GZ" or something of that ilk. As in, not couch-logging.  I think it's a given that if you can't get to gz to make the search because something universal is hindering you, then the equivalent would happen for anyone and it could warrant a NM or even a NA depending on the situation.

 

I take it as the basis - "unless I arrive at GZ and conduct a search" with the exception "unless there's no way to get to GZ to conduct a search". Then a DNF/NM/NA would depend on the reason.

 

The key point is first-hand experience that a DNF/NM/NA is reasonable and warranted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The key point is first-hand experience that a DNF/NM/NA is reasonable and warranted.

 

I really don't like it that DNF is bundled up with NM and NA. The latter two are reports on the status of the cache so it's reasonable to expect some first-hand experience (unless the issue is with the listing rather than the cache itself, of course), but a DNF isn't about the cache, it's about an unsuccessful attempt at finding it. For whatever reason. On ninety percent of my DNFs the cache wasn't missing or in need of attention, I just simply couldn't find it that day, and on many of those I've later gone back and made the find on my second, third, fourth or fifth attempt. Some caches are just hard to find or hard to reach. Some searchers like me are just inept at finding the easy ones. Sometimes there's something that interrupts the search, like the cacher who DNFed one of my hides because of a stubborn snake on the track leading down to it, or my one I quoted earlier when I'd ended up on the wrong side of a creek. DNFs by and large are about the cacher's attempt, not the cache.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

  

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The key point is first-hand experience that a DNF/NM/NA is reasonable and warranted.

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I really don't like it that DNF is bundled up with NM and NA. The latter two are reports on the status of the cache so it's reasonable to expect some first-hand experience (unless the issue is with the listing rather than the cache itself, of course), but a DNF isn't about the cache, it's about an unsuccessful attempt at finding it.

 

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing.  You would post a DNF without first-hand experience?  We're talking about when it's reasonable and warranted to post a NM and NA. Would you post a DNF when it's not reasonable or warranted?

Yeah, a DNF serves a different purpose than a NM, and likewise a NA. I don't disagree with your comment... But I'd still say "The key point is first-hand experience that a DNF/NM/NA is reasonable and warranted."

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

DNFs by and large are about the cacher's attempt, not the cache.

 

Yeah... ... a first-hand experience.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I really don't like it that DNF is bundled up with NM and NA. The latter two are reports on the status of the cache so it's reasonable to expect some first-hand experience (unless the issue is with the listing rather than the cache itself, of course), but a DNF isn't about the cache, it's about an unsuccessful attempt at finding it. For whatever reason. On ninety percent of my DNFs the cache wasn't missing or in need of attention, I just simply couldn't find it that day, and on many of those I've later gone back and made the find on my second, third, fourth or fifth attempt. Some caches are just hard to find or hard to reach. Some searchers like me are just inept at finding the easy ones. Sometimes there's something that interrupts the search, like the cacher who DNFed one of my hides because of a stubborn snake on the track leading down to it, or my one I quoted earlier when I'd ended up on the wrong side of a creek. DNFs by and large are about the cacher's attempt, not the cache.

Agreed.

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 11

×
×
  • Create New...