Jump to content

DNFs being logged as notes


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, aer72 said:

I hate a cacher logging a Dnf as a note what can I do about it?

 

If you explained further, maybe some could get an idea why it's bugging you.  If I don't get a chance to really search, I'll leave a write note instead of a DNF as well.  Feel lucky, many here leave no logs when they can't find it, or throwdown to claim that smiley.    :)

As a CO, we act on logs, so for us it makes no difference.  As a finder, I read logs, so it makes no difference.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, aer72 said:

...a cacher logging a Dnf as a note...

 

At least they logged that they couldn’t find it right?

 

As a cache owner myself, I keep up with just about every log that comes in, especially for my EarthCaches. It helps a lot to weed through potential problems by posting a DNF, but I don’t find that it requires a DNF. 

 

What I like about Geocaching is that you can (pretty much) play the game how you see fit. If you want to find thousands of caches by doing nothing but power trails, or if you want to find really high quality caches over quantity, you can. Just like if you want to post a note instead of a DNF, you can.

 

I see that you’re a relatively newer cache owner. Once you’ve owned caches for years, things like that will just stop bothering you. This is even furthered by the amount of caches you’ve hidden. I’m close to my 100th hide, 45 of which are EarthCaches. A simple note coming through saying they couldn’t find the cache when receiving logs every day, multiple times a day, really stops bothering you. At least that’s what happened to me.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, aer72 said:

I hate a cacher logging a Dnf as a note what can I do about it?

 

Cachers have a variety of justifications for using Note or DNF, some in no way consistent, and some just plain bizarre. Some start a stopwatch and if they only searched X minutes instead of X+1 minutes, “it's not a DNF”. If the entire area washed away in a flood, “it's not a DNF because I couldn't search because the whole side of the hill is gone”.

 

I would never try to talk someone out of at least a Note log, because even a Note provides information. But I would like to smack some sense into them discuss ways someone might understand and communicate that they “Did Not Find” a cache, which is what the acronym “DNF” is.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, aer72 said:

I hate a cacher logging a Dnf as a note what can I do about it?

 

Was it:

"We were uncomfortable tracking this one down as we thought we were intrusive, so didn't bother trying."

 

Why would you prefer a DNF log?

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

There are some who say you should only log a DNF if you're pretty sure the cache is missing (I'm not one of those). This is reinforced by the Cache Health Score which sees a DNF as an indication a cache needs maintenance, and in the Help Centre page that says to log an NA if you can't find the cache and there are several DNFs on the cache page with no response from the CO. At least in the eyes of TPTB, a DNF no longer just simply means "I didn't find it".

Link to comment

If the cache is hidden where the locals watch any strangers in the area, and I'm being watched when I arrive, I don't search.

DNF is the wrong log, as I didn't search...

However, a Note may help other cachers after me, and may raise that there might be  a problem for the cache owner.

 

(I'm the cacher. It's my log. So long as it's 'family friendly', and doesn't appear to be 'Bogus' I can log whatever I feel the situation needs.)

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

If the cache is hidden where the locals watch any strangers in the area, and I'm being watched when I arrive, I don't search.

DNF is the wrong log, as I didn't search...

However, a Note may help other cachers after me, and may raise that there might be  a problem for the cache owner.

I post DNS (Did Not Search) logs as Notes too.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, aer72 said:

Unfortunately one of the problems is as an owner I recieve emails and if it says you have a note for such and such you think the cache needs to be maintained.

It depends on the note that was posted.  I have notes posted to my multi caches that say they're on stage X of a multi and need to come back another day because they ran out of time.  I'm fine with that and it certainly doesn't mean it needs maintenance.  

 

As an aside that pertains to my caching habits, I'd actually log the DNF because I didn't make it to the final to be able to sign the log.  If I can't claim the find without signing the log, then any search where I don't sign the log is a DNF, even if it's because I ran out of time.  I know others prefer notes and have NO problem with that at all.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

As an aside that pertains to my caching habits, I'd actually log the DNF because I didn't make it to the final to be able to sign the log.  If I can't claim the find without signing the log, then any search where I don't sign the log is a DNF, even if it's because I ran out of time.  I know others prefer notes and have NO problem with that at all.

 

For me, if the reason that I didn't complete a search with a find is something that a future seeker might encounter and lead to the same result (not finding the cache) then I'd post a DNF.  Running out of time is something that I might have happen but a future seeker may have enough time.   In the case of arriving at the cache location only to discover that there were a bunch of locals watching the area, that's something that a future seeker might encounter as well and would be a reason for me to post a DNF.  

 

When this discussion has come up in the past there's always debate on at what point does the search begin.  For some, a search doesn't start until one has reached the general area and has started looking in specific spots.  For others,  hitting "Go" on their GPS or phone once leaving the vehicle is the beginning of a search.  For me, if I started down a trail and am following my GPS to a set of lat/long coordinates and abort due some natural or man made barrier I might post a DNF because a future seeker will likely encounter the same barrier.  Yes, I could post a note in that instance but I think geocachers pay more attention to recent DNF logs.

Link to comment

Yeah I wouldn't post a DNF if I didn't think my search for the final was itself thwarted by something related to the cache. If I have give up due to time, the halt is more like a 'pause' in my search where I'll come back later. I'll DNF if something about the cache became the end-game. It can be hard to judge sometimes... like, how far away does, say, a road/trail block have to be before I consider it relevant to the cache (others' searches) or just my inability/laziness to find a way around? :P

 

But yeah, at least something was posted. I wouldn't worry too much about the log type as a CO unless you perhaps have some script that looks at log types. As a followup finder, I'd rather see a note instead of a DNF rather than no log at all. It was asked earlier, but is there a reason why you'd rather see the DNF posted than a Note?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, aer72 said:

Unfortunately one of the problems is as an owner I recieve emails and if it says you have a note for such and such you think the cache needs to be maintained.

There's no reason to make that assumption. A note can be anything. If someone is wanting to let you know that maintenance is required, they'd use a "Needs maintenance" log.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, aer72 said:

Unfortunately one of the problems is as an owner I recieve emails and if it says you have a note for such and such you think the cache needs to be maintained.

10 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

There's no reason to make that assumption. A note can be anything. If someone is wanting to let you know that maintenance is required, they'd use a "Needs maintenance" log.

 

Yep.  We see more leave a "log full" or similar in with their Found It log than using a Write Note. 

It could be even be a reply (often humorous)  to a post another made.  We see that often on well-visited caches. 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

No.

 

The CHS uses DNFs as one factor in an algorithm used to determine whether a cache may have maintenance issues.

 

But it does send out its emails when just a small number of DNFs (sometimes even just one) are the only factor that could possibly indicate a maintenance issue. From all the reports I've seen on the forums, it seems reluctant to send out its emails for anything other than DNFs.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is reinforced by the Cache Health Score which sees a DNF as an indication a cache needs maintenance...

No.

 

The CHS uses DNFs as one factor in an algorithm used to determine whether a cache may have maintenance issues.

Okay, how about:

This is reinforced by the perception that the Cache Health Score sees a DNF as an indication a cache needs maintenance...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But it does send out its emails when just a small number of DNFs (sometimes even just one) are the only factor that could possibly indicate a maintenance issue.

Even with a single DNF, there are other factors that could be part of the algorithm. For example, how long has it been since the last find? What's the D/T? What type of cache is it? How many finds/hides does the DNFer have? Have there been NMs submitted in the past, and how frequently (ie. does this cache have recurring maintenance issues)? Heck, they could even factor in whether certain attributes are used in the positive or negative.

 

So, yes, a single DNF could trigger a low CHS. That still doesn't mean that DNF=NM.

 

Quote

From all the reports I've seen on the forums, it seems reluctant to send out its emails for anything other than DNFs.

Compared to the tens of thousands of logs that are submitted each day, the number of anecdotal reports of false positives in the forums is vanishingly-negligible. The sample size is far too low to make any meaningful conclusions. About all you can conclude is that - judging by the small number of people who have reported false positives - the system is working extremely well and is triggering very few false positives.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The A-Team said:

Even with a single DNF, there are other factors that could be part of the algorithm. For example, how long has it been since the last find? What's the D/T? What type of cache is it? How many finds/hides does the DNFer have? Have there been NMs submitted in the past, and how frequently (ie. does this cache have recurring maintenance issues)? Heck, they could even factor in whether certain attributes are used in the positive or negative.

 

In my case:

  • How long since the last find? 5 weeks
  • What's the D/T? 2/5
  • How many finds/hides does the DNFer have? 1241/11
  • Have there been NMs submitted in the past? No, the cache was only 7 weeks old, and none of my caches have had NMs or NAs logged on them
  • Attributes - no dogs, not suitable for kids, takes more than an hour, not recommended at night, scenic views, boat required, significant hike, snakes, parking available, <10km, field puzzle, cliffs/falling rocks - these alone provide ample opportunity for someone to log a DNF without it meaning the cache needs maintenance

For the life of me, I can't see how anything at all in this can explain why this cache was singled out as needing attention just two days after the DNF was logged, yet last year, in a thread about a cache that had an NM outstanding for six months, someone asked whether the CHS would take care of it but Keystone's reply said it needed more "negative logs" and a longer passage of time before that would happen.

 

My gripe isn't about the CHS per se, it's about the irrationality of its operation. If an NM outstanding for six months requires more time and more negative logs for it to do anything, why does a lone DNF on a high D/T multi set it off after two days? And why, as in a recent example posted in the forum, does it send out the email even if the most recent log after a couple of DNFs was a find? Surely there are enough caches out there with long-standing red wrenches to keep it fully occupied without it having to ping caches with just a couple of DNFs.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I also post write note when I am unable to retrieve the logbook from a gadget cache. The cache is there to be find so it isn't a DNF.

 

And like previous people wrote I also posted write note when I wasn't able to search because of muggle.

In those cases I log a DNF. To me, the find is only completed when I've signed the log which is what is supposed to happen to claim the smiley.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I also post write note when I am unable to retrieve the logbook from a gadget cache. The cache is there to be find so it isn't a DNF.

 

I do the same. 

I'll  leave something like "Found it, but couldn't open the container" in my note, so those reading understand why I didn't log a DNF.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
Quote

From all the reports I've seen on the forums, it seems reluctant to send out its emails for anything other than DNFs.

Compared to the tens of thousands of logs that are submitted each day, the number of anecdotal reports of false positives in the forums is vanishingly-negligible. The sample size is far too low to make any meaningful conclusions. About all you can conclude is that - judging by the small number of people who have reported false positives - the system is working extremely well and is triggering very few false positives.

 

Only a miniscule fraction of cachers participate on the forums, so for every false positive reported here there must be many more we don't hear about, indeed there must be enough for the reviewer at the recent mega to specifically talk about what to do when you get a CHS email but you know the cache is fine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

My question to the OP is why does it bother you?

 

There have been many threads before about different preferences for logging a DNF, a note, or even nothing.    Lots of different preferences and opinions, including when does the search start etc.     I've posted on this subject many times before and don't want to repeat the detail, but in short I'll log either a note or a DNF depending on a number of factors.   An example where I'd log a note (or possibly nothing) is where I didn't even reach GZ, and the reason for that is non-geocaching related.    

Link to comment
19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In my case:

  • How long since the last find? 5 weeks
  • What's the D/T? 2/5
  • How many finds/hides does the DNFer have? 1241/11
  • Have there been NMs submitted in the past? No, the cache was only 7 weeks old, and none of my caches have had NMs or NAs logged on them
  • Attributes - no dogs, not suitable for kids, takes more than an hour, not recommended at night, scenic views, boat required, significant hike, snakes, parking available, <10km, field puzzle, cliffs/falling rocks - these alone provide ample opportunity for someone to log a DNF without it meaning the cache needs maintenance

For the life of me, I can't see how anything at all in this can explain why this cache was singled out as needing attention just two days after the DNF was logged

The point of my post was to show that there could be many factors that are part of the algorithm. In the end, we have no way of knowing. It's also possible (likely?) that the algorithm has changed since your experience.

 

Quote

My gripe isn't about the CHS per se, it's about the irrationality of its operation. If an NM outstanding for six months requires more time and more negative logs for it to do anything, why does a lone DNF on a high D/T multi set it off after two days? And why, as in a recent example posted in the forum, does it send out the email even if the most recent log after a couple of DNFs was a find? Surely there are enough caches out there with long-standing red wrenches to keep it fully occupied without it having to ping caches with just a couple of DNFs.

I'm sure the CHS is very much a work-in-progress. If it's like pretty much every other part of the website, a basic and unsophisticated version of it was rolled out initially and changes have (maybe?) been made over time since then to refine the algorithm. In the end, we don't know how the algorithm worked a year ago, we don't know how it works now, and we probably won't know how it will work in the future. I don't bother stressing about something that has minimal impact for most.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

The point of my post was to show that there could be many factors that are part of the algorithm. In the end, we have no way of knowing. It's also possible (likely?) that the algorithm has changed since your experience.

 

Yes, it's likely been tweaked a little, perhaps it no longer pings caches with just a single DNF, but as recently as a couple of months ago someone posted about one that had only had 2 DNFs with no other history of maintenance issues, and another very recent one had, over a period of a few weeks, find-DNF-DNF-find and was pinged after the most recent find. These aren't things to be smoothed out by fine tweaking, they're scenarios that should never ever be considered as warranting the CHS email or be creating a low enough score to affect the CO in whatever other things the CHS might get used for. It's just bizarre that, of all the caches out there that really do need maintenance, it's picking on ones like these.

 

2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I'm sure the CHS is very much a work-in-progress. If it's like pretty much every other part of the website, a basic and unsophisticated version of it was rolled out initially and changes have (maybe?) been made over time since then to refine the algorithm. In the end, we don't know how the algorithm worked a year ago, we don't know how it works now, and we probably won't know how it will work in the future. I don't bother stressing about something that has minimal impact for most.

 

The CHS has been with us now for three years. Surely that should have been long enough to at least get it to behave in a rational manner. Pinging caches with only a couple of DNFs, just days after those DNFs were logged, while insisting that a cache with an NM outstanding for six months needs more negative logs and more time, isn't rational, unless...

 

Unless, well, there's an underlying assumption that a DNF is a far worse sin than an NM - that DNFs are a blight on the game (doesn't every search deserve a smiley now?) whereas a cache with an outstanding NM for a wet log can still be found so that doesn't really matter in the quest for numbers. If that's the thinking behind it, well, maybe that other thread is right and caching is dead.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment

I personally don't log a DNF unless I am pretty sure I found the spot it should be and it isn't there.  Otherwise it would be no log or a note if I had something to say about the experience. When I was a new CO I would go check any cache that had a DNF on it and I don't want to do that to a CO if the cache is there and I was just missing it.

  What can you do about it?  If it is one special log you are worried about you could contact the cacher to ask what is up with it but in general people will log how they log.  If you contacted us about it I would think it was a bit odd unless you gave a good reason why.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, WarNinjas said:

I personally don't log a DNF unless I am pretty sure I found the spot it should be and it isn't there. 

 

For me this look a little selfish because if everybody do the same then there is no indication for other seekers that the cache may be missing. If you are sure that the cache is missing you should post NM or NA with your DNF.

 

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

For me this look a little selfish because if everybody do the same then there is no indication for other seekers that the cache may be missing. If you are sure that the cache is missing you should post NM or NA with your DNF.

 

 

My DNFs rarely suggest the cache might be missing and I hope neither the CO nor other seekers interpret them that way. My last four DNFs were:

  • One of the new virtuals where I originally logged a find only to be told by the CO that one of my answers was wrong, so I changed it to a DNF. I subsequently went back, found the correct answer and was able to log my find.
  • One of the geoart puzzles for the recent mega where I knew where the cache was at the top of an embankment but couldn't get enough traction in bare feet to get up to it.
  • Another of the geoart puzzles where, in the time since I solved the puzzle and loaded the corrected coordinates, the cache had been vandalised so they moved it to a new location and modified the puzzle accordingly. I didn't realise until I'd got home and read back through the logs, wondering why I was the only one to DNF it. Duh!
  • Yet another geoart puzzle, this time there was a muggle hanging around GZ and I couldn't wait for him to leave as I had a train to catch.

Likewise, of the sixty-something DNFs I've had logged on my own caches, only two have been due to a cache problem, ironically both on the same (now archived) cache. The first time the container had been buried under a rock fall and soon after, its replacement was muggled. Every other DNF was either because of other factors preventing the seeker from finding the cache (swarms of mosquitoes, nightfall, approaching storms, too hard a climb, etc.) or simply my camo or hiding place outwitted them.

 

With higher D/T caches particularly, there are many ways a cache can defeat the seeker without being missing and I think it's sad that DNF has taken on that meaning, especially when we now have a predefined NM that says precisely that ("the cache might be missing"). Maybe we need a new log type that just says "the cache defeated me" - CDM perhaps? - and puts a blue frowny on the map so I'll know to go back and have another try.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...