DNT’s & archiving

[+topcheermom]

 Not sure if this the correct area to post this question. How many DNTs are required to be posted on a cache before it is archived? Or is that even a consideration for archiving?

[+kunarion]

I guess you mean "Did Not Find", DNF.

There's no particular requirement. I consider the log, too, like "I only looked for a couple of minutes, my GPS was acting up". I wouldn't automatically archive a cache due to only the DNF logs, somebody posting about not finding it, but what do I know.

If it's my cache, depending on many factors, three or four DNFs by different cachers may be cause for concern.  If I then go check and (again it all depends) the cache is gone or the area is razed or whatever, that might be it.  Three.

If the cache has begun to get tough to find, try adding more info on the cache page.

For a trend discovered by the site, I've seen a cache get flagged by as few as one (with a Reviewer log about maybe an issue), and then after a while the cache goes away.  I'm guessing that happens with some messages behind the scenes, and knowledge of the CO's other cache issues.

Edited May 4, 2018 by kunarion

[+L0ne.R]

16 minutes ago, topcheermom said:

 Not sure if this the correct area to post this question. How many DNTs are required to be posted on a cache before it is archived? Or is that even a consideration for archiving?

Only NAs notify a reviewer.

Sometimes reviewers do sweeps for NMs, and usually, those caches have 2 or more NMs.

The CHS tool is supposed to help reviewers locate caches with long-standing problems. So DNFsmight trigger a low CHS score, depending on circumstances. The low CHS should get a reviewer's attention eventually. The reviewer will then decide if reviewer action needs to be taken.

A cache wouldn't get archived simply for having DNFs. It's a non-responsive owner that will ultimately be the reason the cache with DNFs ends up archived by a reviewer. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

8 minutes ago, kunarion said:

If it's my cache, depending on many factors, three or four DNFs by different cachers may be cause for concern.  If I then go check and (again it all depends) the cache is gone or the area is razed or whatever, that might be it.  Three.

And some caches are very difficult to find, by design of the cache owner.  By definition, a cache with a difficulty rating higher than a four may require multiple visits before it is found, thus one should expect that at least half of the logs posted on it are DNFs (if it's not, it's probably overrated).  I've seen quite a few cache listings with dozens and even well over 100 DNFs before it's found and it most cases the CO visits the cache and will periodically post a OM log just to let everyone know that it's still there.  

For a lower rated cache that has a string of Found Its, followed by several DNFs in a row on different days, it would suggest that the CO check to make sure that cache is still there.  Typically the reviewer will post a note on the cache asking the owner to check up on it, and if there isn't a timely response the reviewer might archive the listing.

 

[+topcheermom]

19 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I guess you mean "Did Not Find", DNF.

There's no particular requirement. I consider the log, too, like "I only looked for a couple of minutes, my GPS was acting up". I wouldn't automatically archive a cache due to only the DNF logs, somebody posting about not finding it, but what do I know.

If it's my cache, depending on many factors, three or four DNFs by different cachers may be cause for concern.  If I then go check and (again it all depends) the cache is gone or the area is razed or whatever, that might be it.  Three.

If the cache has begun to get tough to find, try adding more info on the cache page.

For a trend discovered by the site, I've seen a cache get flagged by as few as one (with a Reviewer log about maybe an issue), and then after a while the cache goes away.  I'm guessing that happens with some messages behind the scenes, and knowledge of the CO's other cache issues.

There is a cache I’ve looking for with no luck. There have been 8 did not finds on this cache logged. The last log that someone found it was October 6, 2016. I messaged the owner to please check on it and also to change one of of the attributes. They say dogs are allowed, but there are signs there that say NO DOGS. It is located in a cemetery. The owner has not replied. 

[+topcheermom]

I forgot to mention the terrain is listed as 2.2. One catcher logged they had to climb a tree

[+kunarion]

9 minutes ago, topcheermom said:

I forgot to mention the terrain is listed as 2.2. One catcher logged they had to climb a tree

 

I have a cache like that, or maybe like that.  I recently added a "tree climbing" attribute because one guy "climbed the tree" and needed the icon for a challenge cache.

But I also list it as a T3, because it's not high, you step on one low branch.  It's slightly out of one's comfort level for remaining on the ground, but no local considers it a "tree climb" (OK, one guy).  They also think it may be closer to a T2.

The cache you mention seems tricky somehow.  It would be good to ask around.  Is there a local Event you could attend?  You can get some pointers.

Sometimes I'll be in the area of a cache I've previously found that has suddenly developed a string of unanswered DNFs.  I may post a note that I found it before, but not this time.  So the next cachers arrive prepared.  I don't post an NA very often, especially if the container might actually still be there in some way.  But I hope the extra info log helps.

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by kunarion

[+noncentric]

10 minutes ago, topcheermom said:

I forgot to mention the terrain is listed as 2.2. One catcher logged they had to climb a tree

There is no 2.2 rating for Terrain.  It looks like you meant the D/T rating is 2/2.  Difficulty is a 2 and the Terrain is a 2.

From previous logs, it sounds like the cache should not be up in the tree.  It should be within a hollow tree.  Did you check inside the hollow tree?

 

12 minutes ago, topcheermom said:

There is a cache I’ve looking for with no luck. There have been 8 did not finds on this cache logged. The last log that someone found it was October 6, 2016.

There haven't been 8 'recent' DNF's.  There were 3 DNF's a couple years ago, followed by 2 Finds, then 1 more DNF, then 11 Finds, then 4 more DNF's.  Actually 5 more, but 2 are from the same cacher (you), so there have been 4 cachers that have DNF'd recently.

Of this 'recent' group of DNF's - the most recent one was 9/16/17.  It seems that no one went looking for the cache between 10/6/16 and 9/16/17, or they looked and didn't log their DNF's.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by noncentric

[+noncentric]

It would be great if the CO saw the logs in 2016 that mentioned the cache had been moved up into the tree and then went and moved the cache down to its original spot, and just didn't log that 'fix'.

However, the other issue I see is that the CO is now a Basic Member, but their cache is PMO.  Right now, they wouldn't even be able to open the cache page?  Perhaps it would help to message the CO and tell them they can ask a Reviewer (and give a link to a local Reviewer profile) to change their cache to Basic for them, so they can access the page again.

[+L0ne.R]

34 minutes ago, topcheermom said:

I forgot to mention the terrain is listed as 2.2. One catcher logged they had to climb a tree

A D/T 2/2, 8 DNFs in a row since 2016, time to post an NM (needs maintenance). Then an NA a month later if there's no response from the owner.

[+TriciaG]

20 minutes ago, noncentric said:

However, the other issue I see is that the CO is now a Basic Member, but their cache is PMO.  Right now, they wouldn't even be able to open the cache page?  Perhaps it would help to message the CO and tell them they can ask a Reviewer (and give a link to a local Reviewer profile) to change their cache to Basic for them, so they can access the page again.

I'm currently a basic member that has a PMO cache. I can see the listing, no problem.

[+niraD]

Huh... I assumed that DNT meant "Did Not Try", which would be a synonym for DNS (aka "Did Not Search"), which I log using a Note. But of course, such logs would have nothing to do with archiving.

FWIW, my record is 6 DNFs before finally finding the well-camouflaged cache on the 7th attempt. The cache was there all along. There was no reason to archive it.

And as others have indicated, there is no policy to archive a cache after a given number of DNF logs. Although it is possible that DNF logs could prompt some other action, which might eventually lead to the cache being archived depending upon the owner's response (or lack thereof).

[+noncentric]

2 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I'm currently a basic member that has a PMO cache. I can see the listing, no problem.

Interesting.  So, you can open the webpage and get to all the Admin functions?  Do you see different behavior between the app (if you use one) and the website?  No need to answer if you don't want to.  I'm just curious, because I seem to recall that Basic Members viewing their owned PMO caches used to be a problem that required getting TPTB to change the cache to non-PMO. 

[+L0ne.R]

3 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, my record is 6 DNFs before finally finding the well-camouflaged cache on the 7th attempt. The cache was there all along. There was no reason to archive it.

A D2 cache? Sounds like the D rating was quite underrated and should be changed. Was the owner active?

Edited May 4, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+noncentric]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A D/T 2/2, 8 DNFs in a row since 2016, time to post an NM (needs maintenance). Then an NA a month later if there's no response from the owner.

In actuality, it hasn't been 8 DNF's in a row.

The history looks like this:   3 DNF's (5/2016) --> 2 Finds --> 1 DNF --> 11 Finds (last being 10/6/2016) --> 5 DNF's (first being 9/16/2017).  The 5 DNF's are from 4 cachers, since the OP contributed to 2 of the 5.  It seems that no one went looking for the cache between 10/6/16 and 9/16/17, or they looked and didn't log their DNF's.

Still would be good to post an NM, based on the the latest finds saying the cache had been moved from its intended spot, but just wanted to clarify that there haven't actually been 8 DNF's in a row.

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, noncentric said:

In actuality, it hasn't been 8 DNF's in a row.

The history looks like this:   3 DNF's (5/2016) --> 2 Finds --> 1 DNF --> 11 Finds (last being 10/6/2016) --> 5 DNF's (first being 9/16/2017).  The 5 DNF's are from 4 cachers, since the OP contributed to 2 of the 5.  It seems that no one went looking for the cache between 10/6/16 and 9/16/17, or they looked and didn't log their DNF's.

Still would be good to post an NM, based on the the latest finds saying the cache had been moved from its intended spot, but just wanted to clarify that there haven't actually been 8 DNF's in a row.

You've done some sleuthing. Does it look like the cache went missing then someone threw down a cache? The cache having been moved suggests that might have been the case. Has the owner ever posted an OM? Or a note suggesting they've come back to check the cache? Is the owner active anymore?

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

9 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, my record is 6 DNFs before finally finding the well-camouflaged cache on the 7th attempt. The cache was there all along. There was no reason to archive it.

A D2 cache? Sounds like the D rating was quite underrated and should be changed. Was the owner active?

No, in that case the cache was accurately rated D4 ("Very difficult and may take special knowledge, advanced preparation, or multiple trips."). And the owner was (and is) active.

[+TriciaG]

24 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Interesting.  So, you can open the webpage and get to all the Admin functions?  Do you see different behavior between the app (if you use one) and the website?  No need to answer if you don't want to.  I'm just curious, because I seem to recall that Basic Members viewing their owned PMO caches used to be a problem that required getting TPTB to change the cache to non-PMO. 

Yep, on the website I can do all admin functions, including viewing the audit log. I use an unauthorized app, and can view my cache on the app and (apparently) disable, archive, or do maintenance from the app.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[321geocache]

There's an CO near me who is known for hiding very difficult caches (along with some easy ones of course) that require a lot of searching. Many of the CO's caches have 4+ DNFs in a row, but then someone will find it. So no, there is no amount of DNFs needed for a cache to be archived.

[+noncentric]

21 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

You've done some sleuthing. Does it look like the cache went missing then someone threw down a cache? The cache having been moved suggests that might have been the case. Has the owner ever posted an OM? Or a note suggesting they've come back to check the cache? Is the owner active anymore?

A find from when it was up in the tree shows a picture of what might be the original logsheet, unless the throwdowner wrote "GeoCache log -- placed mm/dd/yyyy" on the logsheet and included several sheets stapled together. That seems like more effort than most throwdown caches would get. I don't know if it's a throwdown issue or a cache migration issue?  What's odd is that the first mention of being up high goes all the way back to the the 3rd find log.
Even while in the tree, some cachers said it wasn't very far up, yet others say it was "way up there". I wonder if that's because someone keeps moving the cache, or probably just different opinions of 'high'.

The CO seems 'inactive' to me. Haven't been to the website since the new year, and haven't logged a find since mid-2016. This is their only hide.

I'm still getting my head around BM's being able to view the PMO hides.  Not that I don't agree with it.  I think all cachers should be able to view their own caches, regardless of cache/CO member status.  I just thought that it wasn't possible.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I'm still getting my head around BM's being able to view the PMO hides.  Not that I don't agree with it.  I think all cachers should be able to view their own caches, regardless of cache/CO member status.  I just thought that it wasn't possible.

They can't. There's just some confusion between "advanced" caches (i.e., D/T rating above 1.5/1.5) that Groundspeak's app won't let basic members see and true PMO caches. With some additional confusion caused by Groundspeak's experiment with letting some basic members see "advanced" caches (based on their home location, if I understand correctly).

[+noncentric]

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

They can't. There's just some confusion between "advanced" caches (i.e., D/T rating above 1.5/1.5) that Groundspeak's app won't let basic members see and true PMO caches. With some additional confusion caused by Groundspeak's experiment with letting some basic members see "advanced" caches (based on their home location, if I understand correctly).

Well, TriciaG does have a PMO cache and says she can see her PMO cache on the website and app.  I don't think TriciaG is confused about the difference between PMO and Advanced caches, but I do suspect that her account being based in Canada might be why she is able to see her PMO cache. I think there is a bug.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I assumed that DNT meant "Did Not Try", which would be a synonym for DNS (aka "Did Not Search")

Or DNA Did Not Attempt?

[+niraD]

47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I assumed that DNT meant "Did Not Try", which would be a synonym for DNS (aka "Did Not Search")

Or DNA Did Not Attempt?

Or DNB Did Not Bother?  Or...

[321geocache]

How about DNSL (Did not sign log) ?

[+Isonzo Karst]

(responding to the side issue of Basic Members seeing PMO cache that they own.   If a Basic members owns PMO cache, lapse of membership, adoption, they have all the usual admin functions, see it, edit it, delete logs. The only difference for them is that the box on the edit form that adds or deletes PMO status is not there. To remove it they need to contact a reviewer or GeocachingHQ. There's no bug. Some apps offer owner functions and some don't. I think that's different issue)