DNF Etiquette

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But a DNF posted by someone who never made an attempt, someone posting from their couch at home, I think we all agree isn't warranted or reasonable (just as with a NM or NA).

 

The thing is it shouldn't matter if someone posts an armchair DNF. It wouldn't bother me if someone posted a DNF on one of my hides saying they were thinking of doing it but their car wouldn't start or the weather looked iffy or maybe their horoscope said not to caching that day. NMs and NAs need to be justified since they're requesting action either by the CO or a reviewer, but a DNF isn't an action log, it's just a narrative. As I said a few posts back, it bothers me when I see DNFs bundled together with NMs and NAs because they aren't, well they shouldn't be, in the same category of log.

[+thebruce0]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

The thing is it shouldn't matter if someone posts an armchair DNF. It wouldn't bother me if someone posted a DNF on one of my hides saying they were thinking of doing it but their car wouldn't start or the weather looked iffy or maybe their horoscope said not to caching that day.

 

I would because as a finder I see a DNF as relevant to my potential search. If would not like to see a DNF posted by someone that has absolutely no relevance to what would be my experience. A DNF should be related to the listing, or the experience related to searching for the cache. Otherwise it's not related to the listing so why is it there? A cache listing isn't a personal diary; that's why there's the Personal Notes field; bookmark lists; your own notepad... the listing log history is a public record of logs related to that geocache listing. Therefore I'd expect a DNF to be relevant - warranted and reasonable.

[+dprovan]

5 hours 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.

I suspect this kind of confused thinking is why reviewers are taking over. Obviously it makes no sense to log a DNF if you didn't look for the cache, so let's set that aside.

 

When I post an NA, it's because the preponderance of evidence makes me think the cache should be archived. With rare exceptions, a large part of that evidence must be in past logs. In fact, in most cases, the past logs are enough evidence all on their own. When that's the case, it's a waste of time for me to go to GZ. What, do I think I'm so brilliant that I'll find the cache after all the people logging the various reasons they don't think it's there any more? Do I think the person posting the NM about a failed was lying? If I don't post an NA after I've concluded there's no good reason for me or anyone else to go to GZ, who will ever post the NA? When you think about it, an NA doesn't really have much to do with GZ, anyway. It's much more about the CO's lack of reaction to previous log entries.

 

Your NM comment is even sillier. Using your standard, NMs will never be posted for missing caches. No wonder reviewers have to take over.

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I would because as a finder I see a DNF as relevant to my potential search. If would not like to see a DNF posted by someone that has absolutely no relevance to what would be my experience. A DNF should be related to the listing, or the experience related to searching for the cache. Otherwise it's not related to the listing so why is it there? A cache listing isn't a personal diary; that's why there's the Personal Notes field; bookmark lists; your own notepad... the listing log history is a public record of logs related to that geocache listing. Therefore I'd expect a DNF to be relevant - warranted and reasonable.

 

You could say the same about a WN log, yet I don't see anyone complaining about unreasonable WNs or lumping them in with DNF/NM/NA.

[+thebruce0]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

You could say the same about a WN log, yet I don't see anyone complaining about unreasonable WNs or lumping them in with DNF/NM/NA.

 

No, I mentioned the Note earlier. The log type does not have a direct relevance to the search for a listing, that's why the log type exists - it's a catch-all for content that doesn't fall under the other types; I can choose to read the content and perhaps find information directly relevant to my potential cache experience. But that's why no one complains about unreasonable Notes. They can be done from the couch. eg, I don't complain when someone posts a note saying they qualify for a challenge cache but didn't search for it (I would be bothered if they logged that as a DNF) - the Note has nothing to do with my potential experience searching for the cache.

...Actually, there is an unreasonable Note - when the listing becomes a discussion forum of notes, and that's when a reviewer steps in to lock the listing and stop the irrelevant - to the cache experience - logs from drowning out the relevant ones. So nope, not lumping WNs in with DNF/NM/NA(/Found It/OM/Enable/Disable/etc/etc)

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

So nope, not lumping WNs in with DNF/NM/NA(/Found It/OM/Enable/Disable/etc/etc)

 

Thinking about it, I'd probably classify DNF more as a special class of WN than part of the NM/NA group. So my classification would go like this:

 

WN/DNF/Found It  -  narrative logs

NM/NA  -  action required logs

OM/TD/EN/UC/Archive  -  owner maintenance logs

Publish/Reviewer Note - reviewer logs

Will Attend/Attended/Announcement - event logs

 

Have I missed any?

Edited March 20, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

I would keep WN apart from DNF/Found - the Note log type does not imply any direct relevance to a geocacher's search (covered by the other log types), and allows the geocacher to choose to decide whether to read or skip it. If you were to classify it as 'narrative', then sure, but I'm more interested in direct relevance. If I were looking for a narrative, then I'd read notes. If I'm looking for the cache, I place much more priority on all the other cache types. So in short, I don't care if a Note is couch-logged, because they are allowed to be. The others cannot be, as the log types directly describe a certain experience of that geocacher's (or owner or reviewer) which is related to the search for that specific listing.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours 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.

 

 

I disagree. A 1.5D cache with a long string of DNFs over a long time and the CO has never done maintenance deserves a NM, even if you have never found the cache. Especially if you didn't find the cache on a low D cache following other DNFs. How can one describe a cache that is missing? With a heap of DNFs there are only two conclusions; either the cache difficulty is underrated (no 1.5D should have many, if any DNFs) and that needs correction, or it is correctly rated at 1.5D but the cache is missing. If after a long string of DNFs and the CO has made no response, without the NM nothing will change. The DNFs will go on and on. I have seen that happen. How many DNFs do you want 10, 30? I have seen that. So if I can't find a cache (with a low D) and it's had a string of DNFs I will log that NM and if after a month the CO has done nothing, a NA. Checking, I have made 43 NA logs. Of those only 5 have not been archived, so I feel I made correct calls. 3 of those 5 were not replaced by the CO, but by someone else. The one who did end up replacing their cache after the reviewer came in, told me he expected others to replace his cache. One is still pending. I don't log a NA without reason.

 

I recently made a rare NM log on a cache with a string of DNFs, that I hadn't searched for. Rare because it's not something I routinely do, but I was to visit the area and there weren't many caches. This 1.5DT cache had a string of DNFs going back six months with no action from the CO. It was annoying that no-one had logged the NM. I guess it's a similar mindset as to not logging those DNFs. One can be almost sure there were more DNFs, but unlogged. Well, the DNFs had got no action from the CO over a long period of time, so I logged that NM. Still no action from the CO. I would not log a NA though without actually searching. After a couple more DNFs, the reviewer has stepped in and disabled the cache. Ten days later still no reply from the CO. I expect that cache will be archived too.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I would keep WN apart from DNF/Found - the Note log type does not imply any direct relevance to a geocacher's search (covered by the other log types), and allows the geocacher to choose to decide whether to read or skip it. If you were to classify it as 'narrative', then sure, but I'm more interested in direct relevance. If I were looking for a narrative, then I'd read notes. If I'm looking for the cache, I place much more priority on all the other cache types. So in short, I don't care if a Note is couch-logged, because they are allowed to be. The others cannot be, as the log types directly describe a certain experience of that geocacher's (or owner or reviewer) which is related to the search for that specific listing.

 

Yeah, I take your point but would still say "it all depends", particularly with the sort of caches I seem to go for. A few counter-examples that come immediately to mind:

• On a new puzzle, multi or challenge cache with FTF still up for grabs, other people's WNs reporting their progress or interest can be pretty relevant to other seekers.
• A DNF saying a search was abandoned because a muggle was sitting at GZ reading a book, or a bunch of scouts turned up at just the wrong time out in the wilderness, or even that "snake on the track" DNF I had on my cache, is unlikely to be relevant to either the CO or future seekers, as the muggle/scouts/snake are unlikely to still be there when the next person attempts it. The same goes for weather-related DNFs and I see a lot of those.
• A DNF can sometimes be misleading. That recent one of mine about being on the wrong side of the creek, well I went back a few days ago and it turned out I was on the right side of the creek after all. My find log makes that clear, but I'm not going to delete or edit my DNF because it's part of my search history and something for the CO to rib me about at the next event.

[+thebruce0]

45 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

A 1.5D cache with a long string of DNFs over a long time and the CO has never done maintenance deserves a NM, even if you have never found the cache.

 

And this is one of the dilemmas that led to concepts like the CHS and allowing reviewers to take a more proactive approach (rather than merely responding to community alerts) as they are now. If I were a CO of a 1.5D cache and there were (for arguments' sake) DNFs over 12 months, you bet I'd have checked on the cache long ago! And, I'd expect a lot of those DNFs to be increasing in frustration over time; and unsurprisingly lead to someone posting a NM who never visited the location (check for discussions about "Needs Reviewer Attention", the original suggestion to rename the NA log because feel increasingly felt led to get a reviewer involved but there was no "log" to do so in its proper context). The CHS and reviewer proaction are there now to increase response to perceived inactive ownership giving a bit more attention towards the aim of having geocache listings in 'good condition', in the hopes of deterring frustration and uncertainty due to owner inaction, dissuading people from feeling a necessity to post logs in an otherwise out of context manner (mainly couch-logging and controversial 'cache cop'ing), and providing a generally 'better experience' for geocaching at a basic level.

 

In short, we shouldn't have to feel like we need to post a NM (or NA) on a 1.5D cache that's gathered up 12 months of DNFs.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

even if you have never found the cache.

In that context I was replying to a previous comment, "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." It was not "couch-logging" but actually having searched. I believe a NM is appropriate for a missing cache too, not only a non missing cache. If I search and the cache can't be found, and there have been no other DNFs, without an exceptional reason (ie the tree holding the cache tumbled over the cliff) I would only log a DNF. I log NMs usually only after a number of DNFs, and I look at how experienced those searchers were. I don't feel I have to find the cache to log it's missing.

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

made a rare NM log on a cache with a string of DNFs, that I hadn't searched for.

I did later mention that though. A rare thing for me to do. But the first quote was not in that context.

[+thebruce0]

54 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

On a new puzzle, multi or challenge cache with FTF still up for grabs, other people's WNs reporting their progress or interest can be pretty relevant to other seekers.

 

First, I didn't say a Note couldn't contain relevant information, but it's a catch-all that people can choose to read because the log type itself doesn't imply a status about the cache finding experience.

 

57 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

A DNF saying a search was abandoned because a muggle was sitting at GZ reading a book...

 

...informs me that they had made a direct and specific attempt to find the cache and the area contains muggle activity I might need to watch for.

Whereas a DNF saying a search was abandoned because they discovered a flat tire on their car in their garage before leaving is 100% irrelevant and should not be a DNF.

 

58 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The same goes for weather-related DNFs and I see a lot of those.

 

Whereas I would suggest people do not post a DNF merely because of weather.  I wouldn't - I would post a Note, at most IF, say, extreme unusual flooding deterred me from getting anywhere near the area to give a search, or I had some information that might be of interest to this special circumstance. Additionally, I wouldn't expect to see a noticeable string of DNFs (as multiple search attempts over a period of time), all equally noting simply bad weather; I may see an occasional DNF that seems fairly irrelevant to my intents. I would be quite annoyed if say, a storm stopped someone from leaving home to search for it so they posted a DNF on the cache, but less annoyed if I see a DNF describing the ditch next to the cache as flooded because of rain when they arrived - the latter makes me aware of the ditch that likely everyone has to deal with and its possible state.

Seeing a theme here?

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

A DNF can sometimes be misleading. That recent one of mine about being on the wrong side of the creek, well I went back a few days ago and it turned out I was on the right side of the creek after all. My find log makes that clear, but I'm not going to delete or edit my DNF because it's part of my search history and something for the CO to rib me about at the next event.

 

Here's how I'd handle it (and have in the past): Firstly, for example, if I posted a DNF on the wrong cache, I'd delete it (that's the barebones 100% irrelevant mistake). But if I posted a DNF while searching for a cache that I didn't find only because of a mistake that was 100% my fault, it would be left until my followup log I'd post in which I'd clarify my error - and I'd likely edit the DNF to reflect my error so that it doesn't mislead other finders as well.  So in that situation, 1. followup logs relate to past logs and help keep the cache's last known status up to date, and 2. I know that my error is misleading on that initial DNF and knowing that I myself would be annoyed at being misled by a past finder's mistaken DNF, I would make every effort to clarify the error.

Mistakes happen, I'm aware of that, but I would not condone someone posting an irrelevant log intentionally. And if they realize their mistake, clarify it - both for the CO and other finders.

 

 

All of those main log types imply direct relevance to the cache finding experience - Finds, DNFs, NMs, NAs, and all those other types (except Notes which are catchalls that can contain any style of content, both directly relevant and irrelevant to the finding experience - as long as it doesn't abuse the TOU or make the cache listing a discussion forum).

[+thebruce0]

5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

made a rare NM log on a cache with a string of DNFs, that I hadn't searched for.

I did later mention that though. A rare thing for me to do. But the first quote was not in that context.

 

Gotcha.

To that rare occasion - that's the situation I'd say led to past discussions about the desire for a 'Needs Reviewer Attention' log, so one doesn't feel led to couch-log a NM or jump to the drastic "Needs Archived".  I think it's quite common that people have posted NM, and NA, with the intention of poking the CO or pulling in a reviewer, without having visited the cache because the listing itself seemed problematic or neglected.

[+Gill & Tony]

I have, on occasion logged a NM on a cache I couldn't find and more rarely an NA.  One 1/1 with an obvious clue, a string of DNFs and nothing from the owner.

 

One of our local cachers does a search early each January, for caches within a 50Km radius which have had an NM for more than a couple of months, with no OM, checks each one and whacks NA on all which seem to need it.  A new year, a new start.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Gotcha.

To that rare occasion - that's the situation I'd say led to past discussions about the desire for a 'Needs Reviewer Attention' log, so one doesn't feel led to couch-log a NM or jump to the drastic "Needs Archived".  I think it's quite common that people have posted NM, and NA, with the intention of poking the CO or pulling in a reviewer, without having visited the cache because the listing itself seemed problematic or neglected.

It was after a string of DNFs going back months on a 1.5D Cache. I was planning to visit it; it wasn't a random cache I dug up. I did it to jolt the CO into action, if they ever could be. Some people might ignore logs, but a NM is harder to ignore. I had and have no intention to log a NA. What purpose would that serve. The CO would either attend to their cache or not, in time for my visit. They haven't attended to it and likely the cache will be archived, probably by the reviewer.

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I have, on occasion logged a NM on a cache I couldn't find and more rarely an NA.  One 1/1 with an obvious clue, a string of DNFs and nothing from the owner.

 

One of our local cachers does a search early each January, for caches within a 50Km radius which have had an NM for more than a couple of months, with no OM, checks each one and whacks NA on all which seem to need it.  A new year, a new start.

 

There are some people in our area who take up that strategy too   It's a special circumstance I'd say classifies as a "NRA" sweep (as opposed to say people at home reading a DNF log from someone else posted on a cache and thinking "this should have included a NM" and posting one)

Edited March 20, 2020 by thebruce0

[+The Jester]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Seeing a theme here?

 

Yep, the only time you want me to log a DNF is if it could help you - anything else is irrelevant .  I'm sorry, but you (as a stand in for any seeker after my hunt) are the last in my priorities.  The main reason I write a log is to tell my story in the way I want, second is letting the CO know of activity on their cache, and last, and least important, is info for future seekers.  Sorry, I don't care that you find one of my DNF logs irrelevant, it wasn't addressed to you.  Your style and mine are different, and all your "preaching" that DNF logs only contain relevant info is the "only proper and right way" isn't going to change how I log caches. 

[+colleda]

I recall one that I NM'd and NA'd a few years back without visiting GZ. I felt it was appropriate. If the CO was pro-active it would have saved a few cachers an out of the way drive and trek.

There are shades of grey in this game, this was one of them. The CO is active but seems to have had a three year break during the time the cache was archived.

 

GC5JBWG

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I suppose I just don't like the concept of DNFs being warranted or reasonable, as if it's a black mark against the cache or its owner that has to be justified. It shouldn't matter whether anyone considers it warranted or not, it's just an account of someone intending to find the cache and not succeeding, and most of the time it has nothing to do with any cache issues. It shouldn't matter whether you reach GZ or not, or whether you made a thorough search or not, just that you went out to try to find the cache that day but didn't succeed.

 

 

Writing a note doesn't leave a blue frown on the map as a reminder to try again. I find it useful to have a distinctive log type for unsuccessful attempts as opposed to my generic WNs for TB drops, belated FPs, revisits to previous finds, progress reports on multis/puzzles or whatever.

 

My approach is similar to theBruce0 in that if I feel a DNF log will be of use by other cacher or the owners I will leave a DNF log.  To me, a DNF log conveys the idea that there is a greater likelihood that one will come away with the same experience (not finding the cache) than a note or found it log will.   If, for example, I can't reach GZ because a creek is flooded I might post a DNF even if I haven't reached GZ.  If my search is cut short due to muggle activity becauseI showed up around noon, the same time as office workers came out to sit on the bench where the cache was located, I might post a DNF because another seeker could encounter the same scenario (and result in not finding the cache) if they searched during lunch hour.  If, however,  I am walking toward GZ, and my wife calls me to tell my a pipe broke and the kitchen is flooding, I probably wouldn't post a log at all.  It's unlikely that someone else would have their search cut short for a similar reason.  

[+coachstahly]

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

With a heap of DNFs there are only two conclusions; either the cache difficulty is underrated (no 1.5D should have many, if any DNFs) and that needs correction, or it is correctly rated at 1.5D but the cache is missing.

 

Or the cache was placed in a slightly different location than where it was found, or it has fallen from its perch in the Y of the tree or on the fence, or it's buried under leaves, etc....  I don't know how many times I've managed to find caches with multiple DNFs where previous cachers arrive at the same conclusion you do above and then manage to find the cache in a location that's close enough to GZ to make sense, but far enough off from the hint or the description that most cachers wouldn't bother, based on the previous DNFs.  It's certainly not a 100% rate and in all honestly, it's probably closer to a 25% rate where I have made finds like this, but it shows that the notion that there are only two conclusions to be made isn't entirely accurate.  I've managed to find at least five FTFs on caches with incorrect coordinates that were over 200 feet away (the longest being over .25 miles away), not because I'm a good cacher, but because I don't assume the cache is missing or rated inaccurately.  Either the CO did something inadvertent (transposed a couple numbers), is new and doesn't get accurate coordinates, or has picked up a cache because it was too close to another one and then didn't update the new coordinates when they moved it.  All of these have happened and I've managed to figure out where the cache was hidden using their description as well as any hints they offered up.  Again, these are exceptions to the norm but show that an assumed conclusion isn't really absolute.

 

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If after a long string of DNFs and the CO has made no response, without the NM nothing will change.

 

I agree and will file the NM log if I believe it's warranted, based on my search but I won't go in thinking it's underrated or missing.

 

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So if I can't find a cache (with a low D) and it's had a string of DNFs I will log that NM and if after a month the CO has done nothing, a NA.

 

Fully agree as that's the process we have at hand.

 

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

In short, we shouldn't have to feel like we need to post a NM (or NA) on a 1.5D cache that's gathered up 12 months of DNFs.

 

Yes we should, as those are the tools at our disposal.  In an ideal situation, it never gets to that point because the CO has taken action on their own, but we don't live in an ideal world.  I believe we should feel like we have to post a NM or NA log and do it sooner than 12 months, depending on the frequency of the find rate as well as other factors at play (D/T rating, activity of the CO, etc...)  If the CO isn't going to proactively go out and verify it's in play or not (or broken, or placed incorrectly, or whatever...), then it's up to us to provide that feedback, not wait and put it in the hands of the reviewers.  It's a 2 way street.  When one of the parties is negligent (the hider), it's up to the other side to offer up that feedback to let them know the status of the cache.  If that means that I go out and look for a 1.5 cache that has consecutive DNFs that span 3-4 months and don't find it, I should post the NM log to notify the other seekers and the CO that I believe something is wrong (might be missing).  My DNF log and subsequent NM log provide the reasons why I believe it might be missing.  Therefore, some other cacher who follows after me can, if they wish, file the NA log that should subsequently follow if no action is taken by the CO.  If not, then I can do it by stating that no action with regard to my NM log has been noted.  Then the reviewer gets involved and if no action is taken once again, the reviewer doesn't have to make ANY judgment call as the inaction of the CO as well as the actions of the seekers provides all the evidence needed that the CO isn't living up to the expectations set out in the guidelines and the cache gets archived.  Instead of waiting 12 months for the CHS or a reviewer to notice it, community members, providing the necessary feedback, potentially get rid of a cache, that may or may not be missing but has no CO action, in 6 months instead of the 12 that it took for the reviewer to make a judgment call based on DNF logs only.

 

Cachers should feel obligated to file the NM or NA log if they believe it's warranted, based on factors that they take into account and adjusting those factors based on each individual cache they choose to visit.  Those are tools at our disposal that allow us to make sure that COs know of their responsibility as it pertains to maintaining the cache that they own.  If we, as a community, do these things regularly, then any judgment a reviewer is now occasionally tasked with is rendered irrelevant because all the information they need is at their fingertips in the logs we submit.  They don't have to make educated guesses or rely on a CHS algorithm to determine if the cache needs their attention.  All they'll need to do is react to what the community has done to make sure the CO has lived up to their end of the bargain.  However, for whatever reason, hiders and seekers see the NM and NA log as logs that should be avoided or filed in extreme situations rather than a normal part of what geocaching logs should entail, which is a feedback loop that offers up to the CO any possible issues that have arisen, or to the reviewer, any possible issues that are being ignored by the CO and have resulted in a cache falling out of acceptable guidelines.

[+on4bam]

We had a DNF on Wednesday. Arrived at GZ, found a fixture an top of a petling. Back home, we logged a DNF (cache was missing so we didn't find it) and a NM. The next day the CO placed a new container. Now, as a GSAK user, I had not noticed any problems with that cache because the last log was a Found it logs saying they only found the top and fixture and that the cache was gone. A DNF would have me notice a red square so I could read what the issue was.

Most of the time I read logs in advance but with current conditions we are improvising where to go (travel restrictions and as everything non-essential is closed, no toilets and thus shorter times away from home).

 

So, log DNF's and describe the conditions, not only for the CO but for people behind you.

[+thebruce0]

10 hours ago, The Jester said:

Sorry, I don't care that you find one of my DNF logs irrelevant,

 

Whoah whoah whoah, when did I say your log wasn't relevant? Throwing up a strawman here. What's with this blanket claim that somehow I'm saying every single DNF posted must be relevant to my personal experience? When I say "my" I'm talking of geocachers - you seem to have ignored my examples that clearly attempt to distinguish relevant from irrelevant. Give me an example of this DNF you seem to claim I'm telling you not to post because I'm selfishly saying it's not relevant to me!  Do that, and I'll explain how my comment applies.

 

10 hours ago, The Jester said:

Your style and mine are different, and all your "preaching" that DNF logs only contain relevant info is the "only proper and right way" isn't going to change how I log caches.

 

If you (royal) post DNFs that have absolutely nothing to do with the cache or anyone's possible experience finding the cache then yes, I'll continue to "preach" about good etiquette and complain that your DNFs are unwarranted, unreasonable, and frankly spamming the cache listing.

 

So, give me an example of one of these DNFs I'm telling you not to post, please.

 

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

In short, we shouldn't have to feel like we need to post a NM (or NA) on a 1.5D cache that's gathered up 12 months of DNFs.

 

Yes we should, as those are the tools at our disposal.

 

We have many tools at our disposal, and they can be used correctly and incorrectly, optimally and unoptimally, effectively and ineffectively. The point I'm making is that the log types have an intended implication. And we should have to feel like we need to use a log type that isn't within its realm of intended use, such a stating that a cache needs maintenance without any first hand knowledge. However we don't have a mechanism (a log type) that is intended to alert a reviewer, so we resort to using NM in extreme circumstances without having visited the geocache.  Couch-logging anything is not the 'proper' way to log (this isn't just me, this is what hq encourages as well) - however in some cases we feel led to doing that, which is what led to CHS/reviewer pro-action/discussions about NRA logs, etc.

 

19 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

In an ideal situation, it never gets to that point because the CO has taken action on their own, but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

Exactly what I've been saying

 

18 minutes ago, on4bam said:

So, log DNF's and describe the conditions, not only for the CO but for people behind you.

 

Yes, this. Since there are no "private" logs, logs are public - those are the people who will be reading it, thus it should be relevant to that geocache.

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

However we don't have a mechanism (a log type) that is intended to alert a reviewer, so we resort to using NM in extreme circumstances without having visited the geocache.  Couch-logging anything is not the 'proper' way to log (this isn't just me, this is what hq encourages as well) - however in some cases we feel led to doing that, which is what led to CHS/reviewer pro-action/discussions about NRA logs, etc.

 

We DO have a mechanism.  It's the NA log.  If seekers had been holding up to their end of the deal by posting the appropriate logs, then subsequent cachers could correctly file the subsequent appropriate logs, and so on and so forth, in order, finally, to get the reviewer's attention. If the CO opts not to respond to an initial problem in a found log or a DNF log (as is the case sometimes, for various reasons) and the next cacher comes along and logs the find/DNF and the NM relating the issue to the CO, then the next seeker can see that the appropriate steps to hold the CO accountable have been taken but they've opted (again, for whatever reason) to ignore the NM log and the community can alert the reviewer that this particular cache needs reviewer intervention.  It shouldn't be on a reviewer or some other cacher who has never visited the cache to alert the CO to problems and issues with the cache. All those finders/DNFs failed to file the appropriate log, which would have, in time, led to the mechanism that is intended to alert a reviewer.

 

Any cache that gets to the point that an armchair logger feels validated in filing a NM or NA log or a reviewer feels validated in stepping in to take action is a cache that probably deserves to be archived, which means that those previous loggers of the cache didn't file the appropriate types of logs. 

 

For some reason, cachers are hesitant to use the NM or NA logs.  Sometimes it's because they get a nasty note from the CO.  Sometimes it's because they've been told that it can lead to archival and they don't want to be the ones "accused" of starting things.  Who knows?  However, somewhere along the way, enough cachers opted NOT to file NM and NA logs that the end result was a drop in cache quality due to seekers not holding COs responsible for maintaining their caches.  Therefore, GS enacted the CHS and apparently instructed reviewers to proactively seek out possible problem caches to clean things up.  Now reviewers are asked to make judgments on a cache, without having visited the cache, which goes against what HQ encourages.

[+thebruce0]

Just now, coachstahly said:

We DO have a mechanism.  It's the NA log.

 

That's why there's been discussion about "Needs Reviewer Attention". A sequence of DNFs doesn't always mean a cache must be immediately archived. And many people only want to bring a cache status to the reviewer's attention, not have it immediately archived - they may not post a NA because they don't want the public to think the cache should be archived, but there's no alternative log type for their intent. The log type implies something different than the use, if the person posting it doesn't feel that the cache must be archived but just warrant reviewer attention.  And whether the NA requires first-hand visitation to a cache is a point of contention  (many believe the first-hand visit is required for NM but not NA, many believe you shouldn't post a NA unless you have a good, legitimate reason for a cache requiring immediate archival - either by first-hand visit (say a landowner demands it) or by 'cache cop'ing and posting it on a listing that has many DNFs and unaddressed NM logs).  Personally, I'm certainly not against fringe cases where a NA is posted - with the intent of having a reviewer archive the listing - presuming a legitimate reason that doesn't necessarily include visiting a cache site (because it may be related to the listing).

So it still applies - NA should be posted when warranted and reasonable.  Just as with DNF and NM; all related to the geocache in question.

 

9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

somewhere along the way, enough cachers opted NOT to file NM and NA logs that the end result was a drop in cache quality due to seekers not holding COs responsible for maintaining their caches.  Therefore, GS enacted the CHS and apparently instructed reviewers to proactively seek out possible problem caches to clean things up.  Now reviewers are asked to make judgments on a cache, without having visited the cache, which goes against what HQ encourages for geocachers

 

(fixed the last bit, since "reviewers" aren't "geocachers") Yes reviewers are allowed to make judgments without community prompting (pretty sure they always have been, btw). For precisely the reasons you cite, which I agree with. Geocachers can't make that judgment w/o first hand experience, reviewers can. And, at least in my region, they are very careful to proceed reasonably if taking that proactive step, precisely because they don't have first-hand experience with the cache in question and can only make the judgment based on the listing content and log history.  I get "nudged" occasionally by email if say they're doing a sweep for caches that have been disabled a long time; rather than archiving they want to know I'm still aware and active and going to deal with it. I've had one or two CHS emails and they know which caches have been 'nudged' innocently by the CHS, so the same there - before they take an action they may attempt to contact the CO.  As you say, these are all actions they are now allowed (likely encouraged) to take because of people not posting appropriate logs at appropriate times, and reports of low quality geocaches seemingly increasing  -thus HQ's attempt to improve 'geocache quality' (a very broad and vague concept I'm guessing is judged based on general social media sentiment about geocaching experiences).

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Whoah whoah whoah, when did I say your log wasn't relevant? Throwing up a strawman here. What's with this blanket claim that somehow I'm saying every single DNF posted must be relevant to my personal experience? When I say "my" I'm talking of geocachers - you seem to have ignored my examples that clearly attempt to distinguish relevant from irrelevant. Give me an example of this DNF you seem to claim I'm telling you not to post because I'm selfishly saying it's not relevant to me!  Do that, and I'll explain how my comment applies.

 

 

If you (royal) post DNFs that have absolutely nothing to do with the cache or anyone's possible experience finding the cache then yes, I'll continue to "preach" about good etiquette and complain that your DNFs are unwarranted, unreasonable, and frankly spamming the cache listing.

 

So, give me an example of one of these DNFs I'm telling you not to post, please.

 

 

 

Are we reading the same thread?  You have posted many times DNF without relevant info to you (again, I will state that you are a stand-in for all following searchers) should NOT be posted.  The second paragraph above that you posted answers your question in the first of where you are telling me (the reader) not to post a DNF that doesn't contain relevant info.

 

And I agree, you are throwing up a strawman by making it personal.  But, here, I'll give an example from my past (I can't give the details right now as GSAK is doing a long update for me, but if you insist and I can find dates/cache later).  I was on a cache run around the area,  after finding a few I was driving to the next one on the list.  I was T-boned on the passenger side.  I wasn't hurt seriously (a pulled muscle in the neck that showed up later) and it's good thing I didn't have a passenger as that seat now contained about 6-8" of the door.  After dealing with all this I shortened my run and did one other easy cache on the way home (not the one I was then traveling too) as I was pretty shaken.  I posted a DNF for the cache I was seeking at the time of the accident, telling my story of how my hunt was ended by forces outside my control.  I know you would say that DNF should not have been posted as it has nothing to do with the cache or anyone's hunt of that cache.  But as I explained earlier, my style puts my story first, then anything relevant to the CO and lastly info for following cachers.

 

So continue to "preach" but be honest enough to admit that those are your personal opinions and not "gospel fact" for everyone.

 

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, The Jester said:

You have posted many times DNF without relevant info to you (again, I will state that you are a stand-in for all following searchers) should NOT be posted.

 

Yep, that's what I would recommend to people who are new to the game as etiquette that considers other geocachers' experiences before my own.

 

2 minutes ago, The Jester said:

here, I'll give an example from my past (I can't give the details right now as GSAK is doing a long update for me, but if you insist and I can find dates/cache later).  I was on a cache run around the area,  after finding a few I was driving to the next one on the list.  I was T-boned on the passenger side.  I wasn't hurt seriously (a pulled muscle in the neck that showed up later) and it's good thing I didn't have a passenger as that seat now contained about 6-8" of the door.  After dealing with all this I shortened my run and did one other easy cache on the way home (not the one I was then traveling too) as I was pretty shaken.  I posted a DNF for the cache I was seeking at the time of the accident, telling my story of how my hunt was ended by forces outside my control.  I know you would say that DNF should not have been posted as it has nothing to do with the cache or anyone's hunt of that cache.  But as I explained earlier, my style puts my story first, then anything relevant to the CO and lastly info for following cachers.

 

Sorry about your accident and glad you're okay. 

But yes, in that case, the DNF log type has nothing to do with the cache, and I would have posted a Note with my story rather than a DNF, and I'd still recommend that as good etiquette. That example follows the same concept as the examples I posted - situations specific to an individual that have nothing directly to do with the cache. I'm sure you'll still disagree with me and that's fine, you have your etiquette and I have mine, but I'm thinking of followup cachers and what they infer from my log types before reading my logs. So I will still suggest people post those sorts of logs as Notes (just as I would), if they contain no information directly related to a geocacher's search for that geocache.

 

12 minutes ago, The Jester said:

So continue to "preach" but be honest enough to admit that those are your personal opinions and not "gospel fact" for everyone.

 

Did I ever say my opinions were gospel fact? Sheesh. I'm recommending good etiquette for DNF logs - per the thread discussion! Providing examples, explaining what I do and why, in the hopes that the etiquette is understood and reasonable. Keep doing what you're doing for all I care, "everyone caches their own way"  but from experience, I know that relevant log types to their associated geocaches are MUCH more valuable to the act of finding a specific geocache. And we know from reviewer and HQ activity that excessive logs not related to a listing can have it locked down implying logs should be relevant to their listing.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

That's why there's been discussion about "Needs Reviewer Attention". A sequence of DNFs doesn't always mean a cache must be immediately archived. And many people only want to bring a cache status to the reviewer's attention, not have it immediately archived - they may not post a NA because they don't want the public to think the cache should be archived, but there's no alternative log type for their intent. The log type implies something different than the use, if the person posting it doesn't feel that the cache must be archived but just warrant reviewer attention.  And whether the NA requires first-hand visitation to a cache is a point of contention  (many believe the first-hand visit is required for NM but not NA, many believe you shouldn't post a NA unless you have a good, legitimate reason for a cache requiring immediate archival - either by first-hand visit (say a landowner demands it) or by 'cache cop'ing and posting it on a listing that has many DNFs and unaddressed NM logs).

 

Where is it stated that an NA results in immediate archival of a cache? I've never seen that happen, although perhaps in the case of an angry landholder threatening extreme violence it might. But normally an NA just begins a process.

1. Some time (usually a few days or weeks after it's logged), a reviewer will look at it. If the owner has already responded, the cache doesn't get archived. Otherwise the reviewer will decide whether any action is needed. If they decide it doesn't, the cache doesn't get archived. If they do, they'll disable it and request that the owner respond within 28 days.
2. If the owner responds and fixes the problem within the 28 days, or posts regular updates if it's going to take longer, the cache doesn't get archived. Only once that 28 days has passed with no response from the owner, will the reviewer archive it.

I don't see anything immediate happening there.

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Where is it stated that an NA results in immediate archival of a cache?

Nowhere. But ya know, it's called "Needs Archived". And so I point back once again to discussions about "Needs Reviewer Attention".

The log type implies something about the cache - it needs to be archived, and the reason is the content of the log.

 

 

[+coachstahly]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

That's why there's been discussion about "Needs Reviewer Attention". A sequence of DNFs doesn't always mean a cache must be immediately archived. And many people only want to bring a cache status to the reviewer's attention, not have it immediately archived - they may not post a NA because they don't want the public to think the cache should be archived, but there's no alternative log type for their intent.

 

We have a log that specifically applies to caches that might be missing - Report a problem - cache might be missing.  If the CO doesn't act upon it in whatever time frame that is considered appropriate, then the next step is the NA log, which draws the attention of the reviewer.  Enough DNFs in a row (particularly on an easy cache) should warrant a NM to begin with, then the subsequent NA log (due to CO inaction) is what we have to address this exact problem.  The problem is that cachers are hesitant to file the NM log.  You keep saying that there's no mechanism to draw reviewer attention.  That's EXACTLY what a NA log does.  Contrary to your statement above that filing a NA log due to a sequence of DNFs leads to immediate archival, all it does is alert the reviewer that their intervention is needed, not that it should lead to immediate archival.  

 

You keep saying that reviewers have this ability to examine a cache and determine the appropriate action, if needed.  How is this any different?  They see that it has consecutive DNFs, no NM logs (which should be filed but haven't been) and then make a determination whether or not to archive it, remove the NA log, disable it, post a template saying that this cache needs to be checked up on, etc...  You always imply that just because a cache has a NA log doesn't mean the reviewer MUST archive it.  They must weigh the actions of the CO (or lack of actions) and judge the cache based on its logs before arriving at a conclusion.  Now you're saying that a cache with a sequence of DNFs that gets a NA log from a cacher means that it must be immediately archived.  Which is it?  I'm sure you've said it somewhere but all it does is begin the process, not immediately lead to an archival unless it's a specific situation (private property, immediate threat of imminent danger).

 

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face.  If a cache needs reviewer attention and the logs filed don't indicate any problems, then the finders aren't using the logs correctly and it probably deserves to be archived.  A sequence of DNFs with an unresponsive CO should have been addressed by the previous DNFers (ideally by the CO first but...unresponsive), not immediately brought to the attention of a reviewer.  Are you telling me that we should bypass the exact log we have to address a cache that might be missing?  We should just forego the normal process (log the NM, log the NA, reviewer action to finalize adjudication) and find a way to alert reviewers to caches that need some reviewer interaction.  If we're going to go that route, then we should just get rid of the NM log altogether. For the record, I'm NOT in favor of that.

Edited March 20, 2020 by coachstahly

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Nowhere. But ya know, it's called "Needs Archived". And so I point back once again to discussions about "Needs Reviewer Attention".

The log type implies something about the cache - it needs to be archived, and the reason is the content of the log.

 

 

 

Yes, it needs to be archived if the reviewer agrees and if CO doesn't pop up out of the woodwork and fix the problem. But I don't think anyone expects it to happen immediately. I need coffee but it doesn't have to be immediate, it can wait until I've put some clothes on and am somewhere near a cafe.

[+coachstahly]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The log type implies something about the cache - it needs to be archived, and the reason is the content of the log.

 

So basically you're stuck on the semantics of the "definition" of the log type, not the general concept that a reviewer can (and does) look at the NA log that summons them to a particular cache to make a determination whether or not archival is needed when it's filed. Based on this implicit concept, reviewers MUST archive since that's what is meant when that log is filed.  What happened to all this reviewer judgment and evaluation of the cache using the log history and listing content (and any other tools at their disposal) so as to arrive at a conclusion?  Your fixation on the notion that it must be archived completely eliminates the need for any judgment on the part of the reviewer.  Is that truly what you think?

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

We have a log that specifically applies to caches that might be missing - Report a problem - cache might be missing.

 

"Report a problem - cache might be missing" isn't a log type. There are plenty of discussions about why that functionality and wording was added, good and bad. Don't want to get back into that. As you know, that function adds a NM log - Needs Maintenance. Some people don't like that "might be missing" wording especially if it also auto-posts a canned Needs Maintenance only because someone thinks it might be missing because they couldn't find it. COs have been angry at NMs being added because someone DNF'd their cache. 

 

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 If the CO doesn't act upon it in whatever time frame that is considered appropriate, then the next step is the NA log, which draws the attention of the reviewer.

 

Thus the discussion about the NRA log. The intent people have of posting the log merely because a CO hasn't responded in an arbitrary and subjective amount of time is to get reviewer attention to decide if the cache should be archived. Compared to a NA like "cache js on private property and landowner demands it be removed".  There is reason why there have been arguments over the NA log - COs have had their caches flagged by community posting NA logs frivolously, whether they thought it should be archived or just get reviewer attention.

 

21 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You always imply that just because a cache has a NA log doesn't mean the reviewer MUST archive it.  They must weigh the actions of the CO (or lack of actions) and judge the cache based on its logs before arriving at a conclusion.

 

How about the NA vs NRA wording be directed back to one of those old discussions? What you're talking about is exactly why those discussions existed.  People using NA with the intent o get reviewer attention, not with the intent to suggest a cache must be archived.

 

The NA log implies, by its name, "this cache needs to be archived". NM implies "this geocache needs maintenance". DNF implies "I did not find this geocache". If log content can be posted that's not relevant to the geocache or supporting the log type, then my recommendation for good logging etiquette is not to use that log type or else to use a Note, or in fringe cases with no log type appropriate for the intent of the log use the best log type closest to your intent (thus why people tend to use NM or NA to 'nudge' the CO and/or a reviewer into action)

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

So basically you're stuck on the semantics of the "definition" of the log type, not the general concept that a reviewer can (and does) look at the NA log that summons them to a particular cache to make a determination whether or not archival is needed when it's filed. Based on this implicit concept, reviewers MUST archive since that's what is meant when that log is filed.  What happened to all this reviewer judgment and evaluation of the cache using the log history and listing content (and any other tools at their disposal) so as to arrive at a conclusion?  Your fixation on the notion that it must be archived completely eliminates the need for any judgment on the part of the reviewer.  Is that truly what you think?

 

Of course a reviewer makes a judgment call. My comments are based on community complaints from people often responding to geocachers using NA logs when the intent is primarily to have a reviewer look at the cache, often needlessly, when the log type explicitly says "Needs Archived" on its outward-facing presence.  Same with people posting NM when they did not visit the cache, and the CO knows this.  The problems arise when people use the logs out of context. And the reason NRA came up was because so many people used NA as an "extreme" step to get a reviewer involved - ie, Needs Reviewer Attention, and why some even advocate for complete removal of the NA log with the NRA as the replacement because it's more accurate - as you describe above.  if my intent is to have a cache archived, i can post a NRA log with the reason and the reviewer can decide - that's consistent. If my intent is to get reviewer attention without suggesting it should be archived, there is no log which explicitly implies that.

 

I'm not advocating for anything here except for warranted and reasonable log posting with log types accurate to the intent of the log. I'm describing why I believe a certain etiquette for posting DNF/NM/NA is good, based on past situations that have been discussed in these forums; and, well based on my personal experience as well as a cache finder and hider. I'm not going to throw a fit and complain to corporate if someone uses what I think is a wrong log type, but I'm well aware of why I, you, and others can become annoyed when a log's content doesn't seem to match the log type, or a log doesn't accurately reflect the status or experience of a geocache.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

DNF implies "I did not find this geocache".

 

Exactly! It doesn't imply "I didn't find this geocache after getting to GZ and searching for 30 minutes", or "I didn't find this geocache after getting within 10 metres of GZ" or anything else. To me it implies that you were intending to find the cache but didn't succeed, so I'd rule out logging a DNF on a cache you weren't trying to find, but that's about all.

Edited March 20, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Exactly! It doesn't imply "I didn't find this geocache after getting to GZ and searching for 30 minutes", or "I didn't find this geocache after getting within 10 metres of GZ" or anything else.

I never said that.

 

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To me it implies was that you were intending to find the cache but didn't succeed

Clarify!

By that definition: DNF - "I was intending to find this geocache today, but got a call from my friend en route so decided not to."  No, there's still that ground in between, that line to cross of relevance to the geocache, not mere intent that's so subjective.  If someone asks me what to put in a DNF log, or when to post one, I will say "when you couldn't find that geocache, and have something to say of relevance to the geocache and others who may want to find it." [or let the log type stand on its own]

 

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd rule out logging a DNF on a cache you weren't trying to find, but that's about all.

I would rule out anything that is not relevant to finding the geocache the DNF is posted to.

 

If someone posts a DNF with only "." as the content, that might irk me, but less so than "I was intending to find this geocache today, but got a call from my friend en route so decided not to."  The latter willingly admits that the content of the DNF is 100% irrelevant to anyone's search for the cache. And it contributes to a lesser health score, needlessly (because it's not really a DNF, just a nice story about a geocacher)

Edited March 20, 2020 by thebruce0

[+coachstahly]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

My comments are based on community complaints from people often responding to geocachers using NA logs when the intent is primarily to have a reviewer look at the cache, often needlessly, when the log type explicitly says "Needs Archived" on its outward-facing presence. 

 

When it's the ONLY thing we've got to get reviewer action on a cache, then it shouldn't matter to the community what the "phrasing" of the cache implies.  Again, a cache that needs reviewer attention (via a NA log because that's the ONLY way we can readily do so right now) is probably a cache that needs to be archived anyway.  I fail to see how anyone can complain about that because that's our only recourse. 

 

The needless NA logs I typically see are from new cachers, not ones that have been around awhile.  What examples can you provide that support the need for a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log instead of a "Needs Archived" log (which actually does draw a reviewer's attention to a cache)?  I understand the difference in what each says and implies.  That's not what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for situations/examples where a cache would be better served by a NRA log over a NA log.  When should a reviewer be summoned to look at a cache because it needs reviewer attention that don't apply to possible archival?

 

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The problems arise when people use the logs out of context.

 

However, when those are the ONLY tools we have, sometimes we have to use them in situations that don't typically fit the normal definition until such time as the proper tool comes along.  Other than emailing the reviewer, what other recourse do we have to draw a reviewer's attention to a cache that apparently needs it?  

 

I can get on board with a rejection of the NA log with a NRA replacement but until such time as that were to happen, the only manner we have to publicly summon a reviewer to look at a cache is with the NA log, even if that means it's taken out of context from its implied meaning.  The community may complain but the reviewer will hopefully arrive at the correct decision and take the action needed to correct whatever issue might be at hand.

[+thebruce0]

3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

hen it's the ONLY thing we've got to get reviewer action on a cache, then it shouldn't matter to the community what the "phrasing" of the cache implies.

Sure, I've already addressed that.

 

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

When should a reviewer be summoned to look at a cache because it needs reviewer attention that don't apply to possible archival?

As already addressed, whenever the stated reason for the log is not a legitimate reason to have the cache archived (per its name) Like, "oh 10 DNFs? This cache needs to be archived" as opposed to "cache is on private property and the land owner wants it removed"

 

4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

What examples

When I first mentioned it it wasn't to spark discussion about NA vs NRA but to put light on the importance of the relevance of a log content to its type, and the log to its cache. Search the forum for "Needs Reviewer Attention" threads for examples on that topic.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The problems arise when people use the logs out of context.

 

However, when those are the ONLY tools we have, sometimes we have to use them in situations that don't typically fit the normal definition until such time as the proper tool comes along.  Other than emailing the reviewer, what other recourse do we have to draw a reviewer's attention to a cache that apparently needs it?

Again, already addressed that.  (I'm now trying to help steer back away from NA discussion to relevance to DNFs)

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

By that definition: DNF - "I was intending to find this geocache today, but got a call from my friend en route so decided not to."  No, there's still that ground in between, that line to cross of relevance to the geocache, not mere intent that's so subjective.  If someone asks me what to put in a DNF log, or when to post one, I will say "when you couldn't find that geocache, and have something to say of relevance to the geocache and others who may want to find it." [or let the log type stand on its own]

 

 

My DNFs are primarily an account of my unsuccessful attempt at finding the cache and are written as if I was speaking to the CO, giving him or her something to chuckle about as they read through my ineptitudes. If anyone else finds them useful or amusing, fine, but that's not my goal in writing them. I have an almost supernatural ability to not find caches that are staring me in the face, so my DNFs are probably of little relevance to other seekers anyway. Sometimes the thing that stops me from finding the cache is specific only to me (I have a balance disorder that makes me baulk at any climbs where I don't have secure hand-holds) or sometimes it's a fleeting aboration that will be gone by the time the next cacher arrives (a stray muggle or snake or sudden thunderstorm), or one of my stupid mistakes like transposing digits in a multi's field puzzle or counting five steps when everyone else can see there are six, but I'll still log a DNF as it's an account of my unsuccessful find, a part of my caching history and part of the history of the cache I was looking for. History doesn't have to always be instructive, sometimes it can just be a chronicle of events.

 

Edit to add: To my way of thinking, a DNF is still a DNF even if it isn't about a "problem" either the CO or future seekers need to be aware of.

Edited March 20, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Gill & Tony]

I have always thought it strange to post a DNF when I did not seek.  If, for some reason, I was unable to start a search I will either post nothing or will post a note if the reason is relevant to other people or may even post an NM (if GZ is temporarily unavailable, maybe roadworks or similar).  But I won't post a DNF.

 

Many GSAK users will filter out caches with 2 DNF's since the last find.  Posting "Did not seek" logs as "Did not find" messes this up. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Gill & Tony

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, The Jester said:

I posted a DNF for the cache I was seeking at the time of the accident, telling my story of how my hunt was ended by forces outside my control.

I would have not done a DNF if I hadn't got to the search area, but if I wanted to tell my story (fair enough), a Note. I too once had a car written off when on the way to a cache. Someone ran up the back of my car. They were at fault, so I didn't have to pay excess or lose my no-claim bonus. They would have though.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Goldenwattle
Spelling

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Where is it stated that an NA results in immediate archival of a cache? I've never seen that happen

I have, but not in Australia.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, coachstahly said:

It shouldn't be on a reviewer or some other cacher who has never visited the cache to alert the CO to problems and issues with the cache. All those finders/DNFs failed to file the appropriate log, which would have, in time, led to the mechanism that is intended to alert a reviewer.

 

Any cache that gets to the point that an armchair logger feels validated in filing a NM or NA log or a reviewer feels validated in stepping in to take action is a cache that probably deserves to be archived, which means that those previous loggers of the cache didn't file the appropriate types of logs. 

Agreed, and recently I reluctantly (I rarely do this) logged a NM on a cache I had never visited, but wanted to visit. This is what I wrote, and I was frustrated that no NM maintenance had been made. The reviewer has stepped in and disabled the cache. Eleven days now since that, and a month and a half from my NM log, and still no action from the CO.

Needs Maintenance

26/Jan/2020

I was checking caches to find on an upcoming trip and looking at this cache I saw a string of DNFs and no finds since 21/Jul/2018. It's only a 1.5D, so with that many DNFs and that length of time, this should have been checked ages ago. It needs a CO check.
(And why am I the first to log that NM?)

Edited March 21, 2020 by Goldenwattle
DNF should have been NM.

[+thebruce0]

My first instinct in that situation would be to contact the CO and ask about the cache. I might then ask a previous finder (if there is one).  Then unless it was a cache I really really really wanted to get that one time, I just wouldn't go for it. I might shoot the publishing reviewer a note to ask about the cache or owner. 

I would also wonder why no one else posted a NM if it seemed like the DNFs were related to a problem with the cache or the D was extremely low. If I wanted to post a NM, I would visit it first. I certainly wouldn't post a NA unless I checked out gz - even if there were a string of DNFs and NM; in that case I'd ping a reviewer.

In some cases COs have checked on the cache, not posted an OM, and let DNFs stand alone; though usually that's for higher Ds. That bugs me too. Since the CHS reviewers (and some community) have been suggesting/requesting that COs post those OM logs, even if there is no NM log, so that people know that despite there being so many DNFs, the cache was just checked and is still findable. And all of this has been discussed in other threads too.

Edited March 21, 2020 by thebruce0

[+Gill & Tony]

39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I certainly wouldn't post a NA unless I checked out gz - even if there were a string of DNFs and NM; in that case I'd ping a reviewer.

But isn't an NA log pinging the reviewer?

 

You can't necessarily contact the publishing reviewer, they may have retired as a reviewer, given up the game, or otherwise be unavailable.  Posting an NA pings whoever is currently the reviewer for that area.

[+L0ne.R]

58 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I certainly wouldn't post a NA unless I checked out gz - even if there were a string of DNFs and NM; in that case I'd ping a reviewer.

But isn't an NA log pinging the reviewer?

 

You can't necessarily contact the publishing reviewer, they may have retired as a reviewer, given up the game, or otherwise be unavailable.  Posting an NA pings whoever is currently the reviewer for that area

 

 Yes. And it’s more transparent.

 

But there are community advantages to not publicly posting an NA. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

You can't necessarily contact the publishing reviewer, they may have retired as a reviewer, given up the game, or otherwise be unavailable.  Posting an NA pings whoever is currently the reviewer for that area.

 

Also in my state, there's usually one reviewer just doing the publishing and another responsible for handling NAs and sweeping for long-term disabled caches. Posting an NA also lets everyone else know that something is happening.

[+The Jester]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Did I ever say my opinions were gospel fact? Sheesh. I'm recommending good etiquette for DNF logs - per the thread discussion! Providing examples, explaining what I do and why, in the hopes that the etiquette is understood and reasonable. Keep doing what you're doing for all I care, "everyone caches their own way"  but from experience, I know that relevant log types to their associated geocaches are MUCH more valuable to the act of finding a specific geocache. And we know from reviewer and HQ activity that excessive logs not related to a listing can have it locked down implying logs should be relevant to their listing.

A "don't do this" (which you have used multiple times in this thread) is statement of fact.  A "I don't think you should do this" is an opinion.

 

And you lost some credibility with me when you called irrelevant DNF "spamming the cache page."  Spam is defined by it's content, and you have stated the same content from an irrelevant DNF ("spam") is alright as a Note - but the content is the same.  The content is either spam or not.

 

As to NA or NRA - what other action, besides archival, are you wanting a reviewer to do when you bring a cache to their attention?

 

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

My first instinct in that situation would be to contact the CO and ask about the cache. I might then ask a previous finder (if there is one).  Then unless it was a cache I really really really wanted to get that one time, I just wouldn't go for it. I might shoot the publishing reviewer a note to ask about the cache or owner. 

I would also wonder why no one else posted a NM if it seemed like the DNFs were related to a problem with the cache or the D was extremely low. If I wanted to post a NM, I would visit it first. I certainly wouldn't post a NA unless I checked out gz - even if there were a string of DNFs and NM; in that case I'd ping a reviewer.

In some cases COs have checked on the cache, not posted an OM, and let DNFs stand alone; though usually that's for higher Ds. That bugs me too. Since the CHS reviewers (and some community) have been suggesting/requesting that COs post those OM logs, even if there is no NM log, so that people know that despite there being so many DNFs, the cache was just checked and is still findable. And all of this has been discussed in other threads too.

The CO was contacted, each and every time there was a DNF, since July 2018. My NM added an extra contact. If there is a problem with my cache, I ask people to please log a DNF and if necessary a NM; although I hope a NM won't be necessary as I look after my caches. That's what they are there for. A proper DNF or NM maintenance on one of my caches is likely to get a thank you and apology from me, not offence. And has.

The cache I wanted to visit was over a 1,000km away, so I couldn't visit it first. I had no intention of logging a NA.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

But there are community advantages to not publicly posting an NA.

In healthy communities there are only disadvantages to not publicly posting an NA when you think it's warranted.

[+Goldenwattle]

31 minutes ago, dprovan said:

In healthy communities there are only disadvantages to not publicly posting an NA when you think it's warranted.

In active communities with lots of caches, I agree.