Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
itsonlybarney

DNF Etiquette

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
42 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.

 

In inactive communities with not many caches I also agree. A cache that's missing or no longer serviceable is of no use to anyone. It's even more important that people on the ground are posting NMs and NAs rather than relying on the CHS which can sometimes pounce on caches that are still fine (apart from a few DNFs) but don't have a responsive owner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

In inactive communities with not many caches I also agree. A cache that's missing or no longer serviceable is of no use to anyone. It's even more important that people on the ground are posting NMs and NAs rather than relying on the CHS which can sometimes pounce on caches that are still fine (apart from a few DNFs) but don't have a responsive owner.

In inactive communities with no other caches for a 100kms or so, and maybe no one living in that distance either, I would consider maintaining the cache myself. If it goes, it will never be replaced. But that usually happens with those sort of caches.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

In inactive communities with no other caches for a 100kms or so, and maybe no one living in that distance either, I would consider maintaining the cache myself. If it goes, it will never be replaced. But that usually happens with those sort of caches.

If you maintain it yourself, then there's no need to post an NM or NA.

 

If you want to maintain it, but someone else posts an NM or NA, that's still not a disadvantage: it just means the listing will go away so you can officially take over and maintain it under your own listing.

 

Either way, still nothing but advantages to posting NMs and NAs.

 

Although I admit I'm not in a sparse area, I'm sympathetic to the problem. But there's a certain danger for cachers in sparse cache areas to pretend caches are permanent by trying to protect them from people posting NMs and NAs. When you keep old caches going because you're (legitimately) afraid of losing them all, it becomes too easy to start thinking of geocaches as dropping from the sky and forgetting that the current caches and all future caches are put in place by human beings just like the current geocachers in the area, however few there are. While things look particularly bleak in a sparse area, it's important to keep in mind that geocaching is kept vibrant in any given community by new geocaches, not old ones. I appreciate an old cache as much as anyone else, and I'm not advocating churning, but I am suggesting that a sparsely populated geocaching area remains stale if you focus entirely on not losing existing caches.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Although I admit I'm not in a sparse area, I'm sympathetic to the problem. But there's a certain danger for cachers in sparse cache areas to pretend caches are permanent by trying to protect them from people posting NMs and NAs. When you keep old caches going because you're (legitimately) afraid of losing them all, it becomes too easy to start thinking of geocaches as dropping from the sky and forgetting that the current caches and all future caches are put in place by human beings just like the current geocachers in the area, however few there are. While things look particularly bleak in a sparse area, it's important to keep in mind that geocaching is kept vibrant in any given community by new geocaches, not old ones. I appreciate an old cache as much as anyone else, and I'm not advocating churning, but I am suggesting that a sparsely populated geocaching area remains stale if you focus entirely on not losing existing caches.

 

I'm not sure whether you're referring just to old caches with inactive owners or all old caches, but I try to keep all my older caches going for as long as I can even though they're not getting many finds now (but my newest caches aren't getting many finds either). Looking at my 5km radius from home, the map on the left shows caches more than five years old while the one on the right shows the ones younger than that.

 

image.png.913ccc8c10666841f521eff97aa91c75.png

 

Apart from my own hides, most of the caches in this area are the old ones so if they go there won't be much left for newcomers to the game to enjoy.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you want to maintain it, but someone else posts an NM or NA, that's still not a disadvantage: it just means the listing will go away so you can officially take over and maintain it under your own listing.

I can't take over a cache that's 100s or 1,000s of kms away from where I live. No one else is likely to be able to either for a remote cache, as no geocacher lives within 100s of kms of those caches, and very few people at all live there. I have maintained a cache in a remote area, and naturally I have not logged a DNF, NM or NA. I wouldn't want it archived. Others passing through the area are likely to do the same, maintain those caches placed there before the distance rule came in. Otherwise there would be no caches to be found.

 

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

While things look particularly bleak in a sparse area, it's important to keep in mind that geocaching is kept vibrant in any given community by new geocaches, not old ones.

New caches can't be placed, as no geocacher likely lives closer than 100s of kms away. Remote areas.

 

I will give you an example of a semi-remote area that gets lots of visitors driving through but very few people live there. In a distance on the highway of just under 700kms, there are two towns on the highway; Ghan 124 people and Marla 100 people. So in a distance of just under 700kms, less than 300 people live there, and I imagine a proportion of those would be indigenous people, likely speaking their own language.

Leave the highway and it does become remote.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the area near me.  Of the two multi's at Conjola, one is a T5 kayaking trip (I don't have either a kayak or the skills to use it).  The other is one I'm saving for a special occasion - always assuming it is still there after the fires.  My nearest non-4WD, non-high-terrain cache is 25Km in a straight line from home, but straight line distances aren't much of a guide.  It would be a good 1 hr drive away.

Caches.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/20/2020 at 6:32 PM, thebruce0 said:

Like, "oh 10 DNFs

 

If 10 DNFs isn't enough for a CO to self-check the cache, then it should be archived, unless it's a high D cache, in which case the NRA wouldn't really be appropriate either.  The first step should be a NM to notify the CO that something might be wrong, not jump immediately to a reviewer with a suggested NRA.  If no action is forthcoming from the CO, the next step is the NA.  There's no need for a separate NRA log in this example because a mechanism exists and should work as it is supposed to but cachers don't want to file the correct logs to get this addressed.  In this example you've provided (and assuming the NRA was in place), does that mean you would bypass the NM log (and suggest others do as well) and go directly to a NRA to initiate reviewer action on this cache?  If so, then what does that say about the NM log?  You've essentially rendered it irrelevant.  Also, if the CO doesn't respond to this reviewer action, then the cache is archived.  Basically you're asking for the reviewer to disable a cache that has no NM log (because a 10 consecutive DNF cache probably needs a CO check), see if the CO responds, and then archive the cache when they don't.  And that's somehow a different process and result than the current NA log we have available now because the implication of the terminology is better and not used out of context?  I'm all for changing the name of the log but I honestly can't think of how the process and possible results would differ from how they currently stand or do anything to address the issue of not using the proper logs for needed maintenance and/or reviewer action.

 

On 3/20/2020 at 6:32 PM, thebruce0 said:

Search the forum for "Needs Reviewer Attention" threads for examples on that topic.

 

I did and there's very little that addresses examples, only most people agreeing with the suggestion of a name change of the NA log to the NRA log.  I suggested they keep both (in my initial reply) because there are some cases where immediate action/archival is needed (cache on private property without permission, for example) vs. just the normal progression of an unmaintained cache from NM to NRA.  NRA makes much more sense because it applies across the board to every situation but since that hasn't happened, the NA is what we have so that's what we have to use.  I still don't think there are any examples that would make sense for a community member to forego the NM log and proceed directly to a NRA log.  Most examples (like the 10 consecutive DNFs) should be just as adequately addressed using what we have in place (NM then NA).  The problem is that the community is hesitant to use them or refuses to use them.  The NRA isn't needed if people file the correct logs and use the established process.  The NRA apparently is needed when people choose not to file the correct logs and not use the established process.  Creating or renaming a log that asks for reviewer action doesn't address the problem of people not using the correct log types.  It doesn't change the process already in place, although if you're going to bypass the needed NM log (in the example you provide) to file the NRA log, then it completely changes the process and renders the NM log irrelevant.  It only clarifies the implication of the log being used.  This does nothing to address the root of the problem.

 

On 3/20/2020 at 10:21 PM, thebruce0 said:

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.

 

It's because the community hasn't been "educated" or properly "refreshed" in their proper use.  Now that the CHS and reviewers are apparently pro-actively seeking out caches like this particular example, the community doesn't feel like it's a needed action on our parts, despite the fact that it is. Some of it is related to the actions of GS, some of it is related to COs' reactions to NM/NA logs, and some of it is related to the community's hesitancy in their use.  All this talk between Bruce and I about NA/NRA is completely irrelevant if the community just follows the protocols laid out for us and files the NM/NA logs and COs get over themselves and realize that it's not some personal attack but instead a plea for them to maintain their cache.  They fail to maintain it and it's off the books, as it should be.  

 

On 3/20/2020 at 9:40 PM, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

Like Bruce, I wouldn't have taken action like you did but I would be just as frustrated at the lack of action by the community prior to you.  I might have contacted the CO and/or written a note on the cache page but like some (but not others) I prefer to have firsthand knowledge and visit a cache before filing a NM log.  I have no issues with following up later (I typically wait 4 weeks/30 days), if no action is taken by the CO, with a NA log.  If I didn't file the NM log, I won't file a NA log because I'd prefer to have visited the cache to feel confident in my choice.  I'm sure dprovan doesn't feel like that's needed but if a reviewer is going to take action (or is summoned to take action), then I believe they need as much firsthand information as they can get to help make their decision, not someone else acting, in essence, as a reviewer from afar.  I don't think it's wrong what they do, although I'd not endorse their actions; I feel it's wrong for me based on how I choose to participate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Otherwise there would be no caches to be found.

 

I really don't understand why this is relevant.  Is it really a bad thing if there are no caches to find in remote areas?  Why MUST there be caches to find in remote areas?  Why does it matter if there's a single cache a few 100 Kms from anything else?  Neither you nor anyone else is required to find it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I really don't understand why this is relevant.  Is it really a bad thing if there are no caches to find in remote areas?  Why MUST there be caches to find in remote areas?  Why does it matter if there's a single cache a few 100 Kms from anything else?  Neither you nor anyone else is required to find it.

Please don't be offended by me saying this (and I hesitated to write this), but whenever I read a reply like that, I feel like saying, 'So speaks a person who lives in a part of the world where they are very unlikely ever to drive through an area and not have a cache to find. It's alright for some.' I have checked the map of caches in the USA and you don't have the empty places that Australia does. America is packed with caches. Compare them yourself.

It is nice when travelling (pre this Covid-19 crisis) and many Australians do drive long distances, especially the grey-nomads (retired people), have an excuse to stop and find a cache. In the same distance we drive in Central Australia and other less settled areas (away from urban areas) in the USA you would have the opportunity to find 100s, if not 1,000s of caches, and you want to deny us the fun of finding a handful.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Australia and the contiguous 48 states are roughly the same area.

 

Australia has 85,449 active caches, USA including Hawaii and Alaska has1,008,281.

 

Alaska has 7482 and Hawaii has 2,311

 

USA has roughly 11 times the cache density of Australia

Edited by Gill & Tony
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Getting back onto the topic of DNF etiquette, today I DNFed a newly-published 10-stage EarthCache (GC8K5D1) about an hour and a half's drive north of here. I almost reached WP9 when my path was blocked by huge boulders I couldn't climb over and a lower ledge that might have been a way past except it was being frequently washed by the huge seas that had been building up as the day progressed. There were also two earlier waypoints that I couldn't find even right on low tide due to the conditions. I know there are some who'll say I should've logged a WN rather than a DNF, but to my mind, I was trying to find the cache (in this case answer all the questions) but was defeated by the terrain (which was probably a lot tougher today than the CO intended).

 

What the CO saw at WP2:

 

e6784238-5a7e-4c46-b7f0-def508fee727_l.j

 

What I saw near WP2 right on low tide:

 

DSC_0256.jpg.fd190743f24447b54469831991705438.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Please don't be offended by me saying this (and I hesitated to write this), but whenever I read a reply like that, I feel like saying, 'So speaks a person who lives in a part of the world where they are very unlikely ever to drive through an area and not have a cache to find. It's alright for some.'

I would think that people in areas with very few, far flung caches would be the first to want problems reported. When I go caching, if a cache is missing, I just move on to the next one down the trail, no big deal. If I'd driven 100km to get to my nearest unfound cache only to discover everyone knows it's missing but no one has posted the needed NM or NA "because of the disadvantages", I'd be pretty annoyed. Are you saying that's better than having the missing cache posted?

 

And that's just you, an experienced, motivated cacher. How are you going to increase participation in this geocache desert when every time a newbie goes to a cache, there's nothing there?

 

I definitely understand the frustration when there are very few caches and TPTB archive them unilaterally before anyone can get out and do maintenance. That makes it impossible to foster a culture of seeker help that is required for areas of the type you describe. But if a cache isn't being maintained by either the CO or good samaritans, then there are only advantages to moving it along the NM/NA route.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I definitely understand the frustration when there are very few caches and TPTB archive them unilaterally before anyone can get out and do maintenance.

That's a long bow to draw. I have never seen this happen and saying this, I feel, is insulting to reviewers.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I would think that people in areas with very few, far flung caches would be the first to want problems reported. When I go caching, if a cache is missing, I just move on to the next one down the trail, no big deal. If I'd driven 100km to get to my nearest unfound cache only to discover everyone knows it's missing but no one has posted the needed NM or NA "because of the disadvantages", I'd be pretty annoyed. Are you saying that's better than having the missing cache posted?

 

And that's just you, an experienced, motivated cacher. How are you going to increase participation in this geocache desert when every time a newbie goes to a cache, there's nothing there?

 

I definitely understand the frustration when there are very few caches and TPTB archive them unilaterally before anyone can get out and do maintenance. That makes it impossible to foster a culture of seeker help that is required for areas of the type you describe. But if a cache isn't being maintained by either the CO or good samaritans, then there are only advantages to moving it along the NM/NA route.

You still don't get it. There is almost no one living in many of the areas. No cache can now be placed in an area where virtually no-one lives, and that rare person who does live there then needs to be a geocacher because of the distance rule. That's why many geocachers here service them if they find the cache has problems. And don't think they just throw down a pill bottle; that rarely happens. Generally it's a good small sized cache that is left.

I have explained this many times, but here goes again. Take this stretch of main highway (I could find more remote areas, but for now let's stick to the highway). It's about 450kms between those two caches on the western end of Hwy 66 (more commonly known as the Barkly Hwy) and the other on the Queensland border, with only one other cache in between (in the steam engine pictured), at the ONLY settlement, a roadhouse, which also has camping and a motel. Many/most of the staff live on site in provided accommodation, as there is no town to find workers. Drive that route and that is the only place to find fuel, food and water, so better stock up before you leave. There's not much at Barkly Homestead (the roadhouse) as those photographs show, then cross the border into Queensland and that's you see; no buildings of any kind and only a rare passing through car too. For a new cache to be placed in that area, the owner of the roadhouse would need to be a geocacher (if you pick a random person what's the odds of them being a geocacher?); not one of the workers, as many of them are temporary backpackers on working holidays. There are some stations (farms) of various sizes about (up to 1,977,000 acres (8,000 km2; 3,089 sq mi) in size), but that enforces how unpopulated this hostile country is. Otherwise a geocacher would need to convince the reviewer that they regularly visit the area and can service the cache. Personally I think those are the areas which need the virtual caches, not a busy urban area with many caches already.

There are only two people per 100 square kilometres. Compare that to where you cache.

Barkly highway.jpg

Barkly Roadhouse 1.jpg

Barkly Roadhouse 2.jpg

Queensland_NT Border.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

That's a long bow to draw. I have never seen this happen and saying this, I feel, is insulting to reviewers.

I didn't realize any of that was either contentious or insulting. Do you contest that reviewers are archiving caches based on nothing but posted DNFs? In my neck of the woods, it's become quite rare for an NA to be posted because the cache will be archived unilaterally by a reviewer first. Not rare, but uncommon for even an NM to be posted. I don't think the reviewers make any bones about it. In fact, they seem proud of being more proactive and free to act unilaterally without waiting for an NA to be posted. I don't like it, but most people posting here seem to be cheering, so I'm not sure why me bringing it up would be considered insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I didn't realize any of that was either contentious or insulting. Do you contest that reviewers are archiving caches based on nothing but posted DNFs? In my neck of the woods, it's become quite rare for an NA to be posted because the cache will be archived unilaterally by a reviewer first. Not rare, but uncommon for even an NM to be posted. I don't think the reviewers make any bones about it. In fact, they seem proud of being more proactive and free to act unilaterally without waiting for an NA to be posted. I don't like it, but most people posting here seem to be cheering, so I'm not sure why me bringing it up would be considered insulting.

NM and NA are common here in Australia from what I have noticed before caches get archived. It often needs those before reviewers step in, although it happens too with only a long string of DNFs. I think the reviewers know local conditions and use common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You still don't get it. There is almost no one living in many of the areas. No cache can now be placed in an area where virtually no-one lives, and that rare person who does live there then needs to be a geocacher because of the distance rule. That's why many geocachers here service them if they find the cache has problems. And don't think they just throw down a pill bottle; that rarely happens. Generally it's a good small sized cache that is left.

I do get it. I feel for you. I'm so proud of you for trying, and I support you fostering a culture of seeker based maintenance to handle your unique situation. But, nevertheless, if your system of seeker maintenance fails, for whatever reason, the cache is gone. You're asking people to pretend the cache is still there when it isn't.

 

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Otherwise a geocacher would need to convince the reviewer that they regularly visit the area and can service the cache.

Yes, and reviewers giving a lot more slack for a CO's distance from GZ seems like an obvious and logical solution that a reviewer should jump at for the good of that community. Otherwise, geocaching is dead in that area no matter how well you do at outlawing NMs and NAs. I would also hope the local reviewer sees the need for seeker based maintenance and would be a little less strict about jumping on NMs and NAs when they are posted.

 

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

NM and NA are common here in Australia from what I have noticed before caches get archived. It often needs those before reviewers step in, although it happens too with only a long string of DNFs. I think the reviewers know local conditions and use common sense.

At least that's working. I don't like the reviewers taking action on just DNFs as has become common in my area, but I concede that we have enough caches, so a good cache getting archived isn't the end of the world. I'm glad to hear your reviewers haven't started to do that to your much more precious caches. Now if you can just convince them to be a little more cooperative about, say, clearing the maintenance flag when a seeker does maintenance and giving locals time to maintain the cache before reacting to an NA, the disadvantages you see in NMs and NAs go away, too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

would be a little less strict about jumping on NMs and NAs when they are posted.

I suspect they are :)

 

Not all Australia is this remote. On the east coast and around other large urban areas there are plenty of caches, and in urban areas reviewers should be strict with those caches.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I didn't realize any of that was either contentious or insulting. Do you contest that reviewers are archiving caches based on nothing but posted DNFs? In my neck of the woods, it's become quite rare for an NA to be posted because the cache will be archived unilaterally by a reviewer first. Not rare, but uncommon for even an NM to be posted. I don't think the reviewers make any bones about it. In fact, they seem proud of being more proactive and free to act unilaterally without waiting for an NA to be posted. I don't like it, but most people posting here seem to be cheering, so I'm not sure why me bringing it up would be considered insulting.

By saying "unilaterally", to me, means you are implying that the reviewers give no consideration to the reason for the NA and no time for CO to correct issues. From what I have seen in your country reviewers for the most part are more lenient or accommodating than those here. Here (for an NA) the reviewer will, most likely disable the cache and give the CO thirty days notice to fix. Thirty or more days later, with no response from CO, the cache will be archived. I have seen N American reviewers respond first with a WN to CO giving thirty days, then if no CO response, a disablement for another thirty days. Two months for a cache that may have been festering for a year without action from the CO. And, if they come across a continuing problem cache with no NMs, more power to them for taking the initiative and putting it to sleep using the above process.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a bit torn at the moment.

 

There are three caches a couple of hours from home.  Each of the first two has part of the coordinates for the third.  I went hunting a few weeks ago.  Found the first with no problem, but the second is missing.  A previous finder had told me exactly where to look, so I'm absolutely certain it is missing.  I posted an NM, asking the CO to check.  The CO is active (found a cache in January, visited the site in February) but hasn't responded to either my NM or one left 6 months or so ago.

 

I want to put an NA on it in another couple of weeks, but if it gets archived it means the third cache can only be found by someone who gets the coordinates from a previous finder.    Mind you, that's the situation at the moment with it missing.

 

I can't adopt it, I live too far away.  I've suggested to a player up that way that they might adopt it, but nothing seems to have happened.  I guess that if it does get archived, someone else can put a new cache there to keep #3 alive.

 

What to do?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, colleda said:

By saying "unilaterally", to me, means you are implying that the reviewers give no consideration to the reason for the NA and no time for CO to correct issues.

Oh. Sorry for the confusion. By "unilaterally", I mean all on their own, without an NA or even an NM. That doesn't imply anything about consideration of reasons or time to react, but the considerations, whatever they were, are not public or open to discussion.

 

5 hours ago, colleda said:

From what I have seen in your country reviewers for the most part are more lenient or accommodating than those here. Here (for an NA) the reviewer will, most likely disable the cache and give the CO thirty days notice to fix. Thirty or more days later, with no response from CO, the cache will be archived. I have seen N American reviewers respond first with a WN to CO giving thirty days, then if no CO response, a disablement for another thirty days. Two months for a cache that may have been festering for a year without action from the CO. And, if they come across a continuing problem cache with no NMs, more power to them for taking the initiative and putting it to sleep using the above process.

Dunno if your information is localized or merely out of date. What you describe is the way reviewers in my area used to react 2 or 3 years ago -- except the times were typically shorter than you've listed here -- but nowadays after few DNFs, a cache is likely to be archived within a couple months. More quickly if an NM saying the log is full is posted. Very uncommon these days for an NA to be posted because reviewers archive the caches long before anyone in the community thinks the problem is serious enough.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I want to put an NA on it in another couple of weeks, but if it gets archived it means the third cache can only be found by someone who gets the coordinates from a previous finder.    Mind you, that's the situation at the moment with it missing.

"...if it gets archived..." No, this is wrong. As you yourself point out, the listing getting archived from the site doesn't change anything at all about whether the 3rd cache can be found. There's no "if" about it: it's already the case that no one can find the bonus cache.

 

When I post an NM, I almost never post the subsequent NA. I told the CO about the problem. I hope he fixes it. But I've already laid out my position in the NM. Someone impartial needs to consider my case and decide if the CO's time has run out.

 

But if I came across this cache with an NM already posted, I might drag my feet, hoping against hope the CO will still fix the problem, but ultimately I'd post the NA 'cuz the cache is toast.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a run down of my last few NA logs all within the last month but haven't filed one for a long time before that usually do file the NM log.

1) No logging in the past 3 years. Few months of DNFs with a clear hint and an admitted throw down of a go in a plastic baggie. 6/8 of co's hides archived. 

                - Funny thing is he logged in to archive his cacache

2)No logging in the past 5 1/2 years. No finds in 2 1/2 years with multiple dnfs posted. A little over half of co's hides archived

                - currently disabled

3) I kind of was mad at wasting my time on this one. No finds in a year with over 100+ finds and was being logged a lot and often. 3 dnfs posted indicating the gz became a homeless camp. To me I felt the cache was being neglected and if I brought a young kid to this cache for their first experience great I now have to explain why there was dirty underwear hanging from the branch and don't touch those needles. Oh and now they don't want to do this anymore. Also it was not safe.

                - co moved the cache across the street

 

I have filed one long ago due to a complaint from the landowner about not wanting folks on his property. I'm sure there would be no arguments on this one. Funny thing was they blocked the whole area as the CO wanted to move it but was not allowed it had been muggled a lot, and replaced by CO a lot.

 

So I'm perfectly fine filing NA/NM/DNF logs, please don't write a note saying there is a problem, that just does not work most of the time. So NAs I typically reserve for neglect and where it seems the process is not being followed or some kind of new danger, there have been a few of those. NRA is really the main purpose there. NM's are for the CO to come do something to improve this cache. I truly wish log maintenance were excluded but understand why some do it that way. I have filed several "false" NM on potential missing containers but those typically have very specific hints and/or string of DNFs. I will file a NM on a cache where SWAG needs clearing out usually caused by a waterproofing issue and that stuff animal is now a waterlogged moldy mess, I don't get the swag thing and NO CANDY. DNFs if I searched the area I'll file the DNF. I see DNFs help remind me I tried that one and failed. So I might think twice before trying again if at all. Has people found it since I was there or several other DNFs nope skipping till CO takes care of it. DNF can help  other caches to say hey there may be a problem here. It can also help the attentive CO so that a NM or reviewer never comes along. 

 

Funny this weekend I DNFed a multi from 2002. I admitted that I was majorly distracted by the swarm of ants climbing on my body (my third least favorite caching event). That I hopped it was not where I met the ants and that I had suspended my search. The CO is long gone. I got 3 messages offering to check my coordinate and if I wished help. This was totally awesome. I learned that the ants were there a few months ago. That the ant tree with the awesome hollow at the base was not were to search. Good to know. I discovered the area I was searching at the time of discovery of said ants, they started biting me and I had to remove my shirt, was were I should actually be. So I will return on that. I was not a fan of community maintenance of abandoned caches, they all used the watch function, maybe this could be a model for remote caches. This has changed my mind that in some cases it can work. Maybe the powers that be could think about this. The whole cache property thing is junk, specially after throwdowns but that is for a different thread. Maybe add a footer that the cache is being maintained by the community.

 

Edited by MNTA
typo I'm sure there are more

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Dunno if your information is localized or merely out of date. What you describe is the way reviewers in my area used to react 2 or 3 years ago -- except the times were typically shorter than you've listed here -- but nowadays after few DNFs, a cache is likely to be archived within a couple months. More quickly if an NM saying the log is full is posted. Very uncommon these days for an NA to be posted because reviewers archive the caches long before anyone in the community thinks the problem is serious enough.

 

There was a new traditional published not far from here recently that got six DNFs before its first find. Its difficulty rating is now 3.5 but I think (though I'm not sure) it might have started a bit lower than that, maybe a 2.5 or 3. There was nothing wrong with the cache, although the CO did a bit of fine tuning of the coordinates during that time and gave kind words of encouragement to its victims, but once it was eventually found and the local grapevine swung into action, well let's just say a few small nudges were dropped and now most of the DNFers have made the find. I logged 3 DNFs before I finally found it (with that little nudge) and I was so impressed by its camo and placement in what is a high muggle spot that I'll be giving it an FP as soon as I have another spare. All up it's now had 8 finds and 11 DNFs, with two of those finds today.

 

So I'm glad the reviewers here don't immediately pounce on caches that get a few DNFs. A cleverly hidden cache like this one can end up being a lot more memorable than those quick finds that get forgotten soon after they're logged.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, MNTA said:

DNFs if I searched the area I'll file the DNF. I see DNFs help remind me I tried that one and failed. So I might think twice before trying again if at all. Has people found it since I was there or several other DNFs nope skipping till CO takes care of it. DNF can help  other caches to say hey there may be a problem here. It can also help the attentive CO so that a NM or reviewer never comes along.

 

My DNFs in the last six months were:

  • The EarthCache I DNFed yesterday because unexpectly huge waves prevented me from reaching some of the waypoints.
  • A puzzle cache a few weeks ago where my initial search was cut short by overwhelming numbers of mosquitoes. I returned with loads of repellent and found it.
  • Three on the D3.5 traditional I just mentioned, which I finally found on my fourth attempt.
  • The puzzle up Newcastle way where I thought I was on the wrong side of a creek I couldn't easily cross. Subsequently found.
  • An easy traditional in central Sydney at a spot that was swarming with security people preparing for the NYE fireworks event. Subsequently found early in the new year.
  • A traditional on Sydney's northern beaches that eluded me on my first attempt but I found it on my next visit.

Nothing wrong with any of those caches. It's actually quite rare for one of my DNFs to turn out to be a missing cache; the most recent one of those was in January 2019. The rest just outwitted me at the time and those blue frownies on the map serve to lure me back for more attempts until I eventually crack it. Maybe that's why I have a different perspective on DNF logs to some of the others here.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Oh. Sorry for the confusion. By "unilaterally", I mean all on their own, without an NA or even an NM. That doesn't imply anything about consideration of reasons or time to react, but the considerations, whatever they were, are not public or open to discussion.

 

Dunno if your information is localized or merely out of date. What you describe is the way reviewers in my area used to react 2 or 3 years ago -- except the times were typically shorter than you've listed here -- but nowadays after few DNFs, a cache is likely to be archived within a couple months. More quickly if an NM saying the log is full is posted. Very uncommon these days for an NA to be posted because reviewers archive the caches long before anyone in the community thinks the problem is serious enough.

OK that's a little clearer. Although the only time I've seen it happen is after a CO not responding to a CHS nudge from a reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, colleda said:

OK that's a little clearer. Although the only time I've seen it happen is after a CO not responding to a CHS nudge from a reviewer.

I assume the chs it's behind what I'm seeing, of course.

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...