Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
321geocache

DNFs on a simple park and grab

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

This post might sound a bit funny, but I decided to post it anyway. :P

 

I recently placed a geocache that is a simple park and grab. After the FTF and a few other finds, I noticed the cache was rather visible. Not because someone had misplaced it, but because of how I hid it. So I decided to hide it a bit out of view, but it was still an easy P&G, 1.5/1.5 D/T rating. I then received a DNF log. Checked on the cache, all was well. I updated the hint to be more specific. I then received another DNF. Again, checked on the cache as I was in the area. It was in good shape and in the same spot. Should I increase the difficulty higher or make the hint more specific? I am just a bit confused about why there are 2 DNFs in a row for this simple P&G hidden in an obvious location. Or should I remove the "Park and Grab" attribute?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

I have the exact same situation with my very simple guard rail P&G. The logs are really funny, and lots of DNFs. Almost every single person who returns and finds the cache says the same thing in their log: "That's EXACTLY where I looked before!" 

Some have said they've had to make numerous trips looking before they found it. You can literally park 2 feet from the cache.  I love some of the photos people have attached.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC17ZFD_o-r-e-o?guid=4807253f-0057-4c08-9d34-4bb48a166050

 

My husband likes to explain it this way: "You THINK you can see everywhere on the guard rail, but you cannot see it, you have to feel for it"  It's a little bigger than a real OREO cookie.

 

A log (others are similar):

I don't understand, but this is like our 8th try here, and today it was right where we've looked all 8 times. Not only looked, but we have used our fingers on the entire length of that rail from big green box to end of fence on the north. And today, got out of the car and there it was. Mystical floating cookie, I guess. Anyway, now I can stop making this part of my Target shopping experience :) TFTC - a favorite!

_________________________________________________________________________________________

My advice: make sure the hint is really helpful if people are having trouble on a  1.5 D cache.

 

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I have the exact same situation with my very simple guard rail P&G. The logs are really funny, and lots of DNFs. Almost every single person who returns and finds the cache says the same thing in their log: "That's EXACTLY where I looked before!" 

Some have said they've had to make numerous trips looking before they found it. You can literally park 2 feet from the cache.  I love some of the photos people have attached.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC17ZFD_o-r-e-o?guid=4807253f-0057-4c08-9d34-4bb48a166050

 

My husband likes to explain it this way: "You THINK you can see everywhere on the guard rail, but you cannot see it, you have to feel for it"  It's a little bigger than a real OREO cookie.

 

A log (others are similar):

I don't understand, but this is like our 8th try here, and today it was right where we've looked all 8 times. Not only looked, but we have used our fingers on the entire length of that rail from big green box to end of fence on the north. And today, got out of the car and there it was. Mystical floating cookie, I guess. Anyway, now I can stop making this part of my Target shopping experience :) TFTC - a favorite!

_________________________________________________________________________________________

My advice: make sure the hint is really helpful if people are having trouble on a  1.5 D cache.

 

 

I know what you mean - this is a really simple cache and yet there are already DNFs! Here's a link to the cache page:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7VFGY_gardens-at-49th-and-pennsylvania?guid=6e17b23f-3f06-47e7-b20e-23b4762cf73f

It's a bit hard to make the hint more specific - it basically directs people right to the cache already! :P I might move it back to its original location though - I guess it wasn't too obvious there.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, 321geocache said:

 

I know what you mean - this is a really simple cache and yet there are already DNFs! Here's a link to the cache page:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7VFGY_gardens-at-49th-and-pennsylvania?guid=6e17b23f-3f06-47e7-b20e-23b4762cf73f

It's a bit hard to make the hint more specific - it basically directs people right to the cache already! :P I might move it back to its original location though - I guess it wasn't too obvious there.

That appears to be a very good hint!

Share this post


Link to post

I made it more specific after the first DNF. I’ll probably just wait and see. If I get several more DNFs I’ll probably move it back to the old location. 

Thanks for your help! By the way, that sounds like a nice cache! I’m not a premium member so I can’t see it, but judging from your description and the found log, it sounds like a great cache! 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, 321geocache said:

I made it more specific after the first DNF. I’ll probably just wait and see. If I get several more DNFs I’ll probably move it back to the old location. 

Thanks for your help! By the way, that sounds like a nice cache! I’m not a premium member so I can’t see it, but judging from your description and the found log, it sounds like a great cache! 

I fixed that for you. Now you can.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks! That looks like a great cache! I had a fun time reading the past logs :D

 

If I’m ever in Oklahoma, I will look for it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The most recent DNF is from someone with only 2 finds, so they haven't yet developed a geosense to know where to look and what to look for. The other DNF is pretty vague, so it's hard to tell how much effort they actually put in to searching. It could be that they only tried for a minute and never read the hint.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just looking at the simple park and grab cache I told you about. I cannot believe that cache has been in play for almost ELEVEN years, and NOT ONCE has the container gone missing! That is such a rarity.  I also noticed that a lot of people changed their DNFs to Logs or didn't log a DNF, just returned to find the cache.  This is one of those caches where the CO loves the DNF logs (I'm 99% sure, even without checking, that the cache is there).

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The most recent DNF is from someone with only 2 finds, so they haven't yet developed a geosense to know where to look and what to look for. The other DNF is pretty vague, so it's hard to tell how much effort they actually put in to searching. It could be that they only tried for a minute and never read the hint.

 

Yeah, I was thinking that. I'm just going to see what happends for now. More DNFs from experienced cachers, I might edit the listing or change the way the cache is hidden. More Found It logs, and I won't change anything. Thanks for your input.

 

12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I was just looking at the simple park and grab cache I told you about. I cannot believe that cache has been in play for almost ELEVEN years, and NOT ONCE has the container gone missing! That is such a rarity.  I also noticed that a lot of people changed their DNFs to Logs or didn't log a DNF, just returned to find the cache.  This is one of those caches where the CO loves the DNF logs (I'm 99% sure, even without checking, that the cache is there).

I know - most of the caches around here that have been published for that long have often had the container replaced once or twice! That is pretty rare especially for a guardrail cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I have DNF'd more than my share of park and grabs.  Sometimes I just don't see it, or the GPSr pulls me to the wrong spot, or I get stuck on looking in the wrong place because "it just has to be there."

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/29/2018 at 11:10 AM, 321geocache said:

Hi,

 

This post might sound a bit funny, but I decided to post it anyway. :P

 

I recently placed a geocache that is a simple park and grab. After the FTF and a few other finds, I noticed the cache was rather visible. Not because someone had misplaced it, but because of how I hid it. So I decided to hide it a bit out of view, but it was still an easy P&G, 1.5/1.5 D/T rating. I then received a DNF log. Checked on the cache, all was well. I updated the hint to be more specific. I then received another DNF. Again, checked on the cache as I was in the area. It was in good shape and in the same spot. Should I increase the difficulty higher or make the hint more specific? I am just a bit confused about why there are 2 DNFs in a row for this simple P&G hidden in an obvious location. Or should I remove the "Park and Grab" attribute?

 

Thanks.

Oh Oh ... a few more and the Cache Health Police will send you a nasty-gram.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, humboldt flier said:

Oh Oh ... a few more and the Cache Health Police will send you a nasty-gram.

It sometimes takes less than "a few" to get a warning!

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

Oh Oh ... a few more and the Cache Health Police will send you a nasty-gram.

And of course, by "nasty-gram" you mean "a notice that your cache may be in need of maintenance, that you're under no obligation to take any action on the basis of", right?

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes this is a mystery. I recently spent 45 minutes looking for an easy micro. Partly, my GPS was Squirrley. But, I had looked in the spot I found it four times. I have no idea why I didn’t see it the previous 4 looks. Ha!  I even ran my hand along the bench into a bunch of spiderwebs. I’m glad I didn’t give up! I still don’t know how I kept missing it.lol Sometimes, I think it is the lighting. This was a very cloudy day and the paint on the micro exactly matched the metal. On a sunny day, it would be more obvious. ( Or at least that’s what I tell myself).

Share this post


Link to post

I find some Park & Grabs to be elusive, even when people before me post, "easy find!" Then there are others I find right away, and others have posted "DNF" or "it took me a while." 

 

It seems several things are at play, including the lighting, where I park, and how cooperative my phone is. 

 

Some descriptions or hints will say "the usual place," which, at least around here, tends to be a guardrail. I've found guardrails to be challenging sometimes, especially when people hide magnetic hide-a-key containers. Peanut butter jars tend to stand out a bit more, even when attempts have been made to camouflage them.

 

Then there are a couple of hidden in plain sight local caches that I haven't managed to find, despite people posting how easy they are. I think once I find one - or that type - I will find the other more easily.

 

As I've gone along, I think I've gotten better about describing why I think I can't find the cache when I post a DNF. Sometimes, I just haven't been able to give it a good try and I don't bother logging at all. Sometimes, I'm attempting to find one on my way to work, and I just plain run out of time to search thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not think these geocachers will mind me sharing this funny photo, because I've told them before how much it makes me laugh! There were five of them looking.

 

 

OREO funny photo.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The A-Team said:

And of course, by "nasty-gram" you mean "a notice that your cache may be in need of maintenance, that you're under no obligation to take any action on the basis of", right?

 

Tell that to the local cacher who got a nastygram and archived his perfectly good cache last week.

Share this post


Link to post

 

16 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Oh Oh ... a few more and the Cache Health Police will send you a nasty-gram

 

Haven't received one yet. :P

 

12 hours ago, Lorien99 said:

I find some Park & Grabs to be elusive, even when people before me post, "easy find!" Then there are others I find right away, and others have posted "DNF" or "it took me a while." 

 

It seems several things are at play, including the lighting, where I park, and how cooperative my phone is. 

 

Some descriptions or hints will say "the usual place," which, at least around here, tends to be a guardrail. I've found guardrails to be challenging sometimes, especially when people hide magnetic hide-a-key containers. Peanut butter jars tend to stand out a bit more, even when attempts have been made to camouflage them.

 

Then there are a couple of hidden in plain sight local caches that I haven't managed to find, despite people posting how easy they are. I think once I find one - or that type - I will find the other more easily.

 

As I've gone along, I think I've gotten better about describing why I think I can't find the cache when I post a DNF. Sometimes, I just haven't been able to give it a good try and I don't bother logging at all. Sometimes, I'm attempting to find one on my way to work, and I just plain run out of time to search thoroughly.

 

I know what you mean....I've been searching for a "park and grab" cache myself - returned to the place 3 times - and didn't find a trace of it. A lot of people have found it and said "easy find - obvious" or something similar. Yet I don't even see it at all after searching for almost an hour in total. :huh:

 

12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I do not think these geocachers will mind me sharing this funny photo, because I've told them before how much it makes me laugh! There were five of them looking.

 

 

OREO funny photo.jpg

 

LOL :D  

 

 

Edited by 321geocache

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I do not think these geocachers will mind me sharing this funny photo, because I've told them before how much it makes me laugh! There were five of them looking.

I don't get the joke.

Share this post


Link to post

It's a park and grab on a guardrail. Wheelchair friendly except the last two feet. You can park within 2 feet of the cache. Those 3 adults were climbing on the fence looking. I just think it's a funny geocaching photo. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Tell that to the local cacher who got a nastygram and archived his perfectly good cache last week.

If someone chooses to overreact, they have every right to do so.

 

To me, this sounds like someone who doesn't enjoy being a CO anymore and has been looking for an excuse to bow out.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

If someone chooses to overreact, they have every right to do so.

 

To me, this sounds like someone who doesn't enjoy being a CO anymore and has been looking for an excuse to bow out.

It may have been an overreaction, but the lack of enjoyment for being a CO seemed to have come from being told by Groundspeak that his style of challenging geocaches is no longer welcome. Maybe he was misinterpreting the message Groundspeak was trying to communicate, but that was his interpretation.

 

If the automated email had included a suggestion for what to do if the email was received in error (i.e., a false positive), then perhaps Groundspeak's message would have been interpreted differently.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

It's a park and grab on a guardrail. Wheelchair friendly except the last two feet. You can park within 2 feet of the cache. Those 3 adults were climbing on the fence looking. I just think it's a funny geocaching photo. 

I assumed it was because they weren't being very subtle. "Stealth required." Ummm...not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Lorien99 said:

I assumed it was because they weren't being very subtle. "Stealth required." Ummm...not so much. 

Yeah, that's what I meant! 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, The A-Team said:

If someone chooses to overreact, they have every right to do so.

 

To me, this sounds like someone who doesn't enjoy being a CO anymore and has been looking for an excuse to bow out.

That's how I see it.    If at the first sign of trouble you pack up your things and walk away,  maybe you're not cut out to be a cache owner.   You need a little more chutzpah than that.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That's how I see it.    If at the first sign of trouble you pack up your things and walk away,  maybe you're not cut out to be a cache owner.   You need a little more chutzpah than that.

 

That's BS.    There seems to be this prevailing attitude that once some starts geocaching and in this case becoming a CO, that'll be a life long obsession.   I've been avidly engaged in a lot of activities, and eventually my interest has waned.  I'm pretty sure that I'm not unique in this regard. 

 

If a cache owner isn't enjoying being a cache owner for *any* reason they are under no obligation to continue to be a cache owner nor explain to anyone why they've decided to bow out.   When their interest was high they may have been an excellent cache owner, and to claim that "you're not cut out to be a cache owner" is just rude.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

That's BS.    There seems to be this prevailing attitude that once some starts geocaching and in this case becoming a CO, that'll be a life long obsession.   I've been avidly engaged in a lot of activities, and eventually my interest has waned.  I'm pretty sure that I'm not unique in this regard. 

 

If a cache owner isn't enjoying being a cache owner for *any* reason they are under no obligation to continue to be a cache owner nor explain to anyone why they've decided to bow out.   When their interest was high they may have been an excellent cache owner, and to claim that "you're not cut out to be a cache owner" is just rude.

This was in response to fizzymagic intimating that the reason the cache was archived was because of the "nasty e-mail".   I think that's BS.  

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This was in response to fizzymagic intimating that the reason the cache was archived was because of the "nasty e-mail".   I think that's BS.  

I don't think the "nasty e-mail" was the sole reason, but it definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

There have been many developments over the years that have given these cache owners the impression that Groundspeak and/or the geocaching community no longer support their kind of caches. Then they get an email from Groundspeak telling them to fix the cache (when they see no reason for the cache to need fixing) or to archive the cache. They decide to stop "fighting city hall" and archive the cache.

 

And the geocaching community is poorer for the loss.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, niraD said:

I don't think the "nasty e-mail" was the sole reason, but it definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

There have been many developments over the years that have given these cache owners the impression that Groundspeak and/or the geocaching community no longer support their kind of caches. Then they get an email from Groundspeak telling them to fix the cache (when they see no reason for the cache to need fixing) or to archive the cache. They decide to stop "fighting city hall" and archive the cache.

 

And the geocaching community is poorer for the loss.

 

That's the way I see it as well.  The "nasty-email" was not the "first sign of trouble".    Someone that has played the game for awhile, and my have hidden numerous, may become increasingly dissatisfied with how the game is played and how GS has managed it.  The "nasty-email" may be, as you say, the straw that broke the camels back.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, niraD said:

I don't think the "nasty e-mail" was the sole reason, but it definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

There have been many developments over the years that have given these cache owners the impression that Groundspeak and/or the geocaching community no longer support their kind of caches. Then they get an email from Groundspeak telling them to fix the cache (when they see no reason for the cache to need fixing) or to archive the cache. They decide to stop "fighting city hall" and archive the cache.

 

And the geocaching community is poorer for the loss.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been a contributing factor,  It very well may have been.   My view is this.   If that particular e-mail (which is really nothing more than a friendly reminder)  would cause you archive your caches you're probably not cut out to be a cache owner.    What's going to happen when the real maintenance work needs to be done? 

 

I applaud the OP for checking up on the cache at the first hint of an issue.  I just hope they posted an owners maintenance log each time they did.  

 

If I received one of these friendly e-mail reminders my first thought would be "I should take a look at what's going on with my cache" not "This is too much, I need to archive it". 

To me the former is the mindset of someone who wants to be a cache owner.  The latter is someone who likes the idea of being one.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not saying it couldn't have been a contributing factor,  It very well may have been.   My view is this.   If that particular e-mail (which is really nothing more than a friendly reminder)  would cause you archive your caches you're probably not cut out to be a cache owner.    What's going to happen when the real maintenance work needs to be done? 

 

 

The email is not friendly.  It lists possible actions, one of which (it is implied) you MUST take.  But we've been over this a thousand times.  It appears that you would be happy if there were no difficult, hard to reach caches, as long as you don't have to deal with the trauma of a wet log.  Others disagree.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not saying it couldn't have been a contributing factor,  It very well may have been.   My view is this.   If that particular e-mail (which is really nothing more than a friendly reminder)  would cause you archive your caches you're probably not cut out to be a cache owner.    What's going to happen when the real maintenance work needs to be done? 

 

I applaud the OP for checking up on the cache at the first hint of an issue.  I just hope they posted an owners maintenance log each time they did.  

 

If I received one of these friendly e-mail reminders my first thought would be "I should take a look at what's going on with my cache" not "This is too much, I need to archive it". 

To me the former is the mindset of someone who wants to be a cache owner.  The latter is someone who likes the idea of being one.  

 

 

Since you haven't received one of those "friendly reminders" you haven't received any for a cache which you know has no issues.  I see that your highest rated caches have a D3 rating, and one has no DNFs.   Now a imagine a responsible CO that maintains their caches well, but has several D3 or higher caches that rack up DNFs (as a higher difficulty rating should) that lead numerous "friendly reminders" on caches that need no maintenance.   Now imagine that you also put a lot of time and effort to create unique caches, and due the increasing emphasis on numbers caching, you get a lot of logs that consist only of a TFTC or an emoji, and a general impression that the effort that you've put in creating high quality caches just isn't appreciated.  There may be numerous incidents that add up.  Even though you agree that the email may just be a contributing factor (which assumes that there may be other factors), you're still claiming that it's the email that has caused an archived, and for that the CO should be insulted.

 

 I disagree with the notion that they're simply friendly reminders.   A simple reminder can  be ignored.   Ignoring email messages which suggest that they should take some action  is likely going get a reviewer response of some kind.  Ignoring reviewer requests will get ones caches archived.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

The email is not friendly.  It lists possible actions, one of which (it is implied) you MUST take.  But we've been over this a thousand times.  It appears that you would be happy if there were no difficult, hard to reach caches, as long as you don't have to deal with the trauma of a wet log.  Others disagree.

Now now.   You know that's not true.   I'd like to see as many caches out there as can be properly maintained.   I'm surprised you used the example of a wet log.  That's a perfectly good reason for a NM as well as an owner visit.   

 

Maybe your reading into that e-mail based on your own personal experience.   You're definitely not taking it at face value.   

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Since you haven't received one of those "friendly reminders" you haven't received any for a cache which you know has no issues.  I see that your highest rated caches have a D3 rating, and one has no DNFs.   Now a imagine a responsible CO that maintains their caches well, but has several D3 or higher caches that rack up DNFs (as a higher difficulty rating should) that lead numerous "friendly reminders" on caches that need no maintenance.   Now imagine that you also put a lot of time and effort to create unique caches, and due the increasing emphasis on numbers caching, you get a lot of logs that consist only of a TFTC or an emoji, and a general impression that the effort that you've put in creating high quality caches just isn't appreciated.  There may be numerous incidents that add up.  Even though you agree that the email may just be a contributing factor (which assumes that there may be other factors), you're still claiming that it's the email that has caused an archived, and for that the CO should be insulted.

 

 I disagree with the notion that they're simply friendly reminders.   A simple reminder can  be ignored.   Ignoring email messages which suggest that they should take some action  is likely going get a reviewer response of some kind.  Ignoring reviewer requests will get ones caches archived.  

I know it's a tough pill to swallow but here it is.   If you're going to place high d/t caches than be prepared to maintain them like any other cache.    You do understand that the rules and guidelines need to apply to all right?     Dose that little, probably automated, e-mail reminder really outweigh all the positive logs I'm sure your caches receive?    

 

Most of what we're seeing from GS was not intended to target your type of caches although I agree it could put a greater burden on those owners.   Most of you are big boys and girls.   You know how this game works and should be able to understand the bigger picture here.   

 

What are these numerous incidents you speak of?   Multiple dnfs?   Adjust your D/T.   Multiple NMs?   Upgrade the container, hide it better or put in a bigger log. 

If any of these things irritate you than you should archive your caches  because this is all part of being a cache owner.   What else would cause you to archive your caches other than you don't want to be bothered with them anymore?          

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I know it's a tough pill to swallow but here it is.   If you're going to place high d/t caches than be prepared to maintain them like any other cache.    You do understand that the rules and guidelines need to apply to all right?     Dose that little, probably automated, e-mail reminder really outweigh all the positive logs I'm sure your caches receive?    

 

Most of what we're seeing from GS was not intended to target your type of caches although I agree it could put a greater burden on those owners.   Most of you are big boys and girls.   You know how this game works and should be able to understand the bigger picture here.   

 

What are these numerous incidents you speak of?   Multiple dnfs?   Adjust your D/T.   Multiple NMs?   Upgrade the container, hide it better or put in a bigger log. 

If any of these things irritate you than you should archive your caches  because this is all part of being a cache owner.   What else would cause you to archive your caches other than you don't want to be bothered with them anymore?          

 

You're making a lot of assumptions.  No where did I suggest that placing a high d/t cache mitigates ones responsibility to maintain their cache.   A high terrain rating (based on distance/elevation) does make it more difficult to maintain (or, more accurately, visit the cache location after receiving that friendly email), and a higher difficulty rating does, by definition, lead to a higher number of DNFs (which is a factor in the CHS).   The annoyance that some CO's may have is *not* that they have to maintain their caches, it's the repeated friendly reminders, which they can't ignore,  that they must take some sort of action on caches that do *not* require maintenance.

 

You're also assuming that a CO that has put a lot of time, energy, and creativity in their hides is getting "all the positive logs".   One of the factors that might lead to a CO archiving their logs is that they're *not* getting "all the positive logs".  I do know how this game works (I've been playing it for 11 years) and have watched the big picture change.  Geocaching for quantity has become the trend,  logs have just become an obligatory step to get credit for a find,  practices such three cache monty and divide and conquer have become an acceptable way to play the game, as long is it's in the pursuit of a high daily find count.   Large areas are saturated with easy fungible finds, making it impossible to geocache in some areas for those that prefer a focus on quality instead of quantity.   

 

A CO with a cache with a high number of DNF may already have a D/T rating which accurately reflects the cache.  Adjusting the D/T ratings isn't going to change the number of DNFs, and the result may be that the caches is overrated (IMHO, a D3 cache *should* have a small percentage of DNFs) One can, however reduce the number of DNFs they receive on their caches by placing caches that are easy to find.   DNF's and even NMs  could also be reduced by allowing others to drop a throwdown or accept a photo log, or a Found It when the cache is actually missing.   A CO that takes pride in the quality of their hides is unlikely someone that want's to see the game dumbed down to the point that everyone gets a find on every cache.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You're also assuming that a CO that has put a lot of time, energy, and creativity in their hides is getting "all the positive logs".   One of the factors that might lead to a CO archiving their logs is that they're *not* getting "all the positive logs". 

Yep. And part of that is the focus on numbers and the focus on finds as points for some sort of meta-game. Even epic multi-stage caches that are designed to take the better part of a day are subject to "Thanks for helping me qualify for the xyzzy challenge cache" logs, or "my nth find of 42 today" logs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Maybe your reading into that e-mail based on your own personal experience.   You're definitely not taking it at face value.   

Everyone reads that e-mail based on their own personal experience. If so many people are "definitely not taking it at face value", then perhaps it needs to be edited so that its "face value" is more clear to people with varying personal experience.

 

Or maybe all these people are indeed "taking it at face value", and the "just a friendly reminder" crowd is the one reading into it based on their own personal experience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A high terrain rating (based on distance/elevation) does make it more difficult to maintain (or, more accurately, visit the cache location after receiving that friendly email), and a higher difficulty rating does, by definition, lead to a higher number of DNFs (which is a factor in the CHS).

 

A higher terrain rating can also result in more DNFs. On some of my own I've received DNFs where the cacher has found it was tougher than they were expecting, or taking longer than they expected so they ran out of daylight, and I've logged quite a few DNFs of my own where the terrain has defeated me. There are many more ways to not find a T4 or T5 than a P&G.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Multiple dnfs?   Adjust your D/T. 

 

It's a bit hard to do that when the cache is already a T5, which my one that got pinged was. And should you? Is it documented anywhere what the DNF rate should be for any given combination of D and T? I have one D2 where one in six logs is a DNF, another where it's one in ten and a third D2 that's yet to get any DNFs. Which is incorrectly rated? A D2 is defined as "relatively easy to find or solve within 30 minutes" and I think that's a reasonable assessment of all three - a little bit trickier than a run-of-the-mill D1.5. Often a DNF will arise because the hiding place or container doesn't match the seeker's preconception of what it might be so they can look right at it and not see it, but that's not something the CO can easily control without giving it away completely, especially if it's meant to be a surprise.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

A higher terrain rating can also result in more DNFs. On some of my own I've received DNFs where the cacher has found it was tougher than they were expecting, or taking longer than they expected so they ran out of daylight, and I've logged quite a few DNFs of my own where the terrain has defeated me. There are many more ways to not find a T4 or T5 than a P&G.

 

Veering OT, but unless I get a heads-up from another, I usually search for 2.5 and up. 

Just a couple weeks ago, spotted one that was a dnf because they backtracked to a restroom.  Sheesh.

That counts too...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Just a couple weeks ago, spotted one that was a dnf because they backtracked to a restroom.  Sheesh.

Which brings us back to the point that DNF logs by themselves should not trigger the CHS to send a "friendly" reminder.

 

#include standard "yes it should, no it shouldn't" debate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I applaud the OP for checking up on the cache at the first hint of an issue.  I just hope they posted an owners maintenance log each time they did.  

 

I posted an OM log. :D

 

Looks like the cache was found two days ago, so that's good. Probably will keep the D/T rating the same.

 

Will watch the debate in this topic. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

A higher terrain rating can also result in more DNFs. On some of my own I've received DNFs where the cacher has found it was tougher than they were expecting, or taking longer than they expected so they ran out of daylight, and I've logged quite a few DNFs of my own where the terrain has defeated me. There are many more ways to not find a T4 or T5 than a P&G.

 

Point taken.  I've DNFd a couple where I wasn't paying attention to the terrain rating until I got to GZ and discovered it was up in a tree that I was not capable in climbing.

 

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's a bit hard to do that when the cache is already a T5, which my one that got pinged was. And should you? Is it documented anywhere what the DNF rate should be for any given combination of D and T?

 

Sort of.  For a D4 rating the help center has:  "Very difficult and may take special knowledge, advanced preparation, or multiple trips."   Multiple trips suggests that one or more trips to GZ have resulted in a DNF.  The suggest to me that a 4D cache should have a DNF rate of somewhere between 30-40% and one can extrapolate from that for a 3D cache.  I've seen several 5D caches with DNF rates over 80%.  I've also seen some with less than 10%, which, to me clearly indicates that they're overrated. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Sort of.  For a D4 rating the help center has:  "Very difficult and may take special knowledge, advanced preparation, or multiple trips."   Multiple trips suggests that one or more trips to GZ have resulted in a DNF.  The suggest to me that a 4D cache should have a DNF rate of somewhere between 30-40% and one can extrapolate from that for a 3D cache.  I've seen several 5D caches with DNF rates over 80%.  I've also seen some with less than 10%, which, to me clearly indicates that they're overrated.

 

Yeah, sort of. There was a needle-in-a-haystack D5 on an observation tower north of here that had about 90% DNFs when it was first published, but once there were a few finds, word got out, people got hints from previous finders and eventually DNFs became proportionally much rarer. Often DNFs beget DNFs and finds beget finds, especially in this age of social media and instant connectivity. Then when you throw multis and puzzles into the mix where factors other than the cache's concealment contribute to the D rating, trying to infer a DNF rate from that rating becomes a lot harder. A D4 puzzle that's all puzzle difficulty with an easy-to-find cache at the end is unlikely to get many DNFs, but an equally-rated easy puzzle with a tough hide at the end would.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If I received one of these friendly e-mail reminders my first thought would be "I should take a look at what's going on with my cache" not "This is too much, I need to archive it". 

To me the former is the mindset of someone who wants to be a cache owner.  The latter is someone who likes the idea of being one.  

 

Why should your first thought be that you should take a look at what's going on with your cache if you placed it in such a manner that would preclude any possible issues?  I received one of these emails recently and KNEW that the stage everyone was missing was there in place and still waiting to be found.  The ONLY reason it could be missing was rain of a biblical proportion, and that hasn't happened.  Sure enough, there it was, right where I had placed it, just a little bit more difficult due to some natural camouflage creep.  I never had any intention to archive it but if I keep getting these reminders (sorry, they're not friendly but I don't think they're un-friendly either), particularly on this cache, I'll consider it.  Why should I be required to take action on a cache I've placed to be as muggle proof as possible and has existed in one form or another (it's the same location I had for another cache of mine that I ended up archiving as the series wound to an end) for over 6 years and has NEVER gone missing, even though I couldn't find the original stage on a maintenance visit, put out a replacement, and then subsequently found the original when another cacher mentioned finding two containers at the location in a private email?

 

22 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I know it's a tough pill to swallow but here it is.   If you're going to place high d/t caches than be prepared to maintain them like any other cache.    You do understand that the rules and guidelines need to apply to all right?     Dose that little, probably automated, e-mail reminder really outweigh all the positive logs I'm sure your caches receive?    

 

 

Nowhere did anyone say that they weren't going to maintain them.  The issue appears to be that it's increasing maintenance, to some extent, for those with higher D/T rated caches, when there are countless 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s that appear to limp along for much longer than can be explained.  You even admit, in the next paragraph, that the CHS could be a "greater burden" on higher D/T caches than others.  Higher D rated caches, are, by their very rating, HARDER to find and will incur more DNFs than lower rated D caches.  Why does that mean there should be a bigger maintenance burden on the higher D cache than the lower one?  How does that equally "apply to all"?  We obviously don't know which COs and which caches have been sent the automated email, so there's no real way to know, but with all the 1.5/1.5 caches in my area that have NM logs and/or multiple DNFs that are still limping along, I find it odd that I'm being asked to do something to my perfectly fine cache that's a 2.5/2 while there are 6 1.5/1.5 caches with red wrenches (30% on the very first page of my PQ of 1.5/1.5 caches) that haven't been attended to and that have multiple finds and multiple DNFs and are still in play.

 

I haven't even addressed your positive log comment.  I wish I had all positive logs, but that's far from the truth.  The most recent CHS email regarding the cache in question, while not a great cache, uses public art at the first stage, a moderately difficult second stage hide, with a higher T than the other two stages, and a themed final container.  2 favorite points in 18 finds, generally neutral logs, and a few one or two sentence comments with not much substance.

 

23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Multiple dnfs?   Adjust your D/T.   .......... 

If any of these things irritate you than you should archive your caches  because this is all part of being a cache owner.

 

Multiple DNFs are expected for higher D/T rated caches.  Even if you adjust it, you're still going to get DNFs, which in turn lower the CHS, which in turn could spit out more automated CHS emails.  I fail to see how doing what you suggest will create less DNFs.  Changing a D/T rating won't suddenly create more finds on a difficult cache.  Are you implying that a higher D rating, due to the CO adjusting the rating because of the DNFs, will decrease the traffic to the cache in question, reducing the possible DNFs and then reducing the possible CHS automated emails?  If so, then this point supports the notion that geocaching doesn't want these higher D/T types of caches around.

 

Multiple DNFs don't irritate me as a CO, especially on the harder caches I've placed.  I expect DNFs.  NM logs don't irritate me as I expect to get those from time to time and have replacement containers ready to go, in most cases.  What I don't expect are emails that let me know something might be wrong, based on people logging DNFs (as they should when they can't find the cache), when I'm pretty sure that there's nothing wrong with the cache.  I've received two of the emails and both times there was nothing wrong with the cache, as I expected.

 

Hello Max and 99,

Your geocache, Mrs. Wiggins, Secratary to Mr. Tudball (GC6X5M7), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
  • Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
  • Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.
     

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article. 

Thanks,
Geocaching HQ

 

I hide and place my caches so I have to do as little maintenance as possible.  I use good containers.  I place them where muggles are unlikely to venture and those that are muggled get archived or moved as I have no intention of providing containers for non-geocachers.  I hide them in a manner that will hopefully ensure that they stay in place regardless of what mother nature throws at them. I expect DNFs and the occasional NM logs.  I don't expect to receive emails from GS, implying that something might be wrong with my cache, and that maintenance is needed.  For those of you who wholeheartedly believe that you don't have to do anything, please show me in the above letter, which was exactly like mine, except with a different CO name and a different cache, where it says you don't need to do anything.  "might" is the only word in there that hints at the idea nothing could be done because there's nothing wrong.  However, the entire rest of the email is about what you as the CO could do and no mention that you also have the option to do absolutely nothing and everything will be just fine.  Their assumption is that something is, indeed, wrong with the cache.  Adding insult to injury, at least in my situation, is that I haven't had ANY NM logs on the cache in question, only DNFs on a stage that was designed to be harder, yet remain secure in place.  Therefore, the previous logs only show that it wasn't found.  Why should I be asked to perform maintenance solely on the basis that a cache hasn't been found?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:34 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

You're making a lot of assumptions.  No where did I suggest that placing a high d/t cache mitigates ones responsibility to maintain their cache.   A high terrain rating (based on distance/elevation) does make it more difficult to maintain (or, more accurately, visit the cache location after receiving that friendly email), and a higher difficulty rating does, by definition, lead to a higher number of DNFs (which is a factor in the CHS).   The annoyance that some CO's may have is *not* that they have to maintain their caches, it's the repeated friendly reminders, which they can't ignore,  that they must take some sort of action on caches that do *not* require maintenance.

 

You're also assuming that a CO that has put a lot of time, energy, and creativity in their hides is getting "all the positive logs".   One of the factors that might lead to a CO archiving their logs is that they're *not* getting "all the positive logs".  I do know how this game works (I've been playing it for 11 years) and have watched the big picture change.  Geocaching for quantity has become the trend,  logs have just become an obligatory step to get credit for a find,  practices such three cache monty and divide and conquer have become an acceptable way to play the game, as long is it's in the pursuit of a high daily find count.   Large areas are saturated with easy fungible finds, making it impossible to geocache in some areas for those that prefer a focus on quality instead of quantity.   

 

A CO with a cache with a high number of DNF may already have a D/T rating which accurately reflects the cache.  Adjusting the D/T ratings isn't going to change the number of DNFs, and the result may be that the caches is overrated (IMHO, a D3 cache *should* have a small percentage of DNFs) One can, however reduce the number of DNFs they receive on their caches by placing caches that are easy to find.   DNF's and even NMs  could also be reduced by allowing others to drop a throwdown or accept a photo log, or a Found It when the cache is actually missing.   A CO that takes pride in the quality of their hides is unlikely someone that want's to see the game dumbed down to the point that everyone gets a find on every cache.

 

 

 

 

Maybe part of the problem is a disconnect with your local reviewer.    If it did have a high D/T cache and was receiving this reminder e-mail I'd look at the logs and determine whether or not a visit was required.   If I thought the cache was fine I'd simply ignore it.   If my reviewer disagreed we'd have a discussion about it.   If they still  thought a check was in order I'd go out and do that.   Point is regardless of what I may think, my reviewer has the final say and if they're convinced I should check up on it I will. 

 

I don't spend hours upon hours of my time designing caches with the primary goal of self aggrandizement.  In other words I don't need constant praise to continue doing what I'm doing.   To me find counts are much more important than favorite points. 

 

If your D/T accurately reflects the cache than by all means don't change it.    I  know of a few that are rated much too low and probably receive more dnfs than they should.  Adjusting the D/T on these caches would help reduce dnfs.  

 

I get this type of response mainly from long timers who either can't or won't change their perception of what they think Geocaching is today.   Instead of changing with the times they choose to cling to the past.   Geocaching will never be like it was 15 years ago.  It's not possible.  Technology and the sheer number of players has seen to that.    This automated e-mail is a direct result of those changes and IMO necessary in dealing with the vast majority of caches that are out there today,  the majority of them being low D/T.   

The Geocaching app is a perfect example.   I think it was a good idea because it opened up Geocaching to many more people.  I think it was a bad idea for the same reason.  The difference is I'm willing to deal with the issues the app has created and change how I operate within the system.    I'm willing to endure a couple of e-mails because overall I think they have a positive effect on a much bigger segment of the cache owner community. 

 

I wonder how many people have actually received this e-mail?   I'd also like to know of those who have,  how many were justified? 

 

So to bring this full circle I'd first like to apologize to the OP for derailing yet another post.   I'd also like to congratulate them on placing the cache and actually caring about people finding it.    Continue keeping an eye on your cache and if you think there's a problem check it out and make a few changes.  Also, don't be afraid to contact your reviewer if the need arises.  Regardless of how they are portrayed here in the forums they are Geocaching fans as well and are there to help.   

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, niraD said:

Everyone reads that e-mail based on their own personal experience. If so many people are "definitely not taking it at face value", then perhaps it needs to be edited so that its "face value" is more clear to people with varying personal experience.

 

Or maybe all these people are indeed "taking it at face value", and the "just a friendly reminder" crowd is the one reading into it based on their own personal experience.

I've read the e-mail and unless it has changed I still don't see what the outrage is all about.   There is nothing in that message that  makes me feel like I'm being harassed.  If problem is constantly receiving the e-mail then we can discuss.     

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:41 PM, 321geocache said:

 

I posted an OM log. :D

 

Looks like the cache was found two days ago, so that's good. Probably will keep the D/T rating the same.

 

Will watch the debate in this topic. ;)

Nice work.  OM logs are a cache owners (and finders)  best friend.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:15 PM, coachstahly said:

 

Why should your first thought be that you should take a look at what's going on with your cache if you placed it in such a manner that would preclude any possible issues?  I received one of these emails recently and KNEW that the stage everyone was missing was there in place and still waiting to be found.  The ONLY reason it could be missing was rain of a biblical proportion, and that hasn't happened.  Sure enough, there it was, right where I had placed it, just a little bit more difficult due to some natural camouflage creep.  I never had any intention to archive it but if I keep getting these reminders (sorry, they're not friendly but I don't think they're un-friendly either), particularly on this cache, I'll consider it.  Why should I be required to take action on a cache I've placed to be as muggle proof as possible and has existed in one form or another (it's the same location I had for another cache of mine that I ended up archiving as the series wound to an end) for over 6 years and has NEVER gone missing, even though I couldn't find the original stage on a maintenance visit, put out a replacement, and then subsequently found the original when another cacher mentioned finding two containers at the location in a private email?

 

 

Nowhere did anyone say that they weren't going to maintain them.  The issue appears to be that it's increasing maintenance, to some extent, for those with higher D/T rated caches, when there are countless 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s that appear to limp along for much longer than can be explained.  You even admit, in the next paragraph, that the CHS could be a "greater burden" on higher D/T caches than others.  Higher D rated caches, are, by their very rating, HARDER to find and will incur more DNFs than lower rated D caches.  Why does that mean there should be a bigger maintenance burden on the higher D cache than the lower one?  How does that equally "apply to all"?  We obviously don't know which COs and which caches have been sent the automated email, so there's no real way to know, but with all the 1.5/1.5 caches in my area that have NM logs and/or multiple DNFs that are still limping along, I find it odd that I'm being asked to do something to my perfectly fine cache that's a 2.5/2 while there are 6 1.5/1.5 caches with red wrenches (30% on the very first page of my PQ of 1.5/1.5 caches) that haven't been attended to and that have multiple finds and multiple DNFs and are still in play.

 

I haven't even addressed your positive log comment.  I wish I had all positive logs, but that's far from the truth.  The most recent CHS email regarding the cache in question, while not a great cache, uses public art at the first stage, a moderately difficult second stage hide, with a higher T than the other two stages, and a themed final container.  2 favorite points in 18 finds, generally neutral logs, and a few one or two sentence comments with not much substance.

 

 

Multiple DNFs are expected for higher D/T rated caches.  Even if you adjust it, you're still going to get DNFs, which in turn lower the CHS, which in turn could spit out more automated CHS emails.  I fail to see how doing what you suggest will create less DNFs.  Changing a D/T rating won't suddenly create more finds on a difficult cache.  Are you implying that a higher D rating, due to the CO adjusting the rating because of the DNFs, will decrease the traffic to the cache in question, reducing the possible DNFs and then reducing the possible CHS automated emails?  If so, then this point supports the notion that geocaching doesn't want these higher D/T types of caches around.

 

Multiple DNFs don't irritate me as a CO, especially on the harder caches I've placed.  I expect DNFs.  NM logs don't irritate me as I expect to get those from time to time and have replacement containers ready to go, in most cases.  What I don't expect are emails that let me know something might be wrong, based on people logging DNFs (as they should when they can't find the cache), when I'm pretty sure that there's nothing wrong with the cache.  I've received two of the emails and both times there was nothing wrong with the cache, as I expected.

 

Hello Max and 99,

Your geocache, Mrs. Wiggins, Secratary to Mr. Tudball (GC6X5M7), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
  • Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
  • Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.
     

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article. 

Thanks,
Geocaching HQ

 

I hide and place my caches so I have to do as little maintenance as possible.  I use good containers.  I place them where muggles are unlikely to venture and those that are muggled get archived or moved as I have no intention of providing containers for non-geocachers.  I hide them in a manner that will hopefully ensure that they stay in place regardless of what mother nature throws at them. I expect DNFs and the occasional NM logs.  I don't expect to receive emails from GS, implying that something might be wrong with my cache, and that maintenance is needed.  For those of you who wholeheartedly believe that you don't have to do anything, please show me in the above letter, which was exactly like mine, except with a different CO name and a different cache, where it says you don't need to do anything.  "might" is the only word in there that hints at the idea nothing could be done because there's nothing wrong.  However, the entire rest of the email is about what you as the CO could do and no mention that you also have the option to do absolutely nothing and everything will be just fine.  Their assumption is that something is, indeed, wrong with the cache.  Adding insult to injury, at least in my situation, is that I haven't had ANY NM logs on the cache in question, only DNFs on a stage that was designed to be harder, yet remain secure in place.  Therefore, the previous logs only show that it wasn't found.  Why should I be asked to perform maintenance solely on the basis that a cache hasn't been found?

Preclude any possible issue?  If you've been around a while you know there's no such thing.    Have you ever received on of these e-mails?

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×