Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
learn2mine

Excessive owner maintenence logs!

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I get the fact that a dnf can mean a cache is missing.   That's the point you refuse to admit.

That's because it's not true. A DNF cannot possibly mean a cache is missing because -- guess what? -- he didn't find it. For heaven's sake. You can take a DNF as one piece of evidence and build up a case suggesting the cache might be missing, but that doesn't mean a DNF can mean the cache is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This is a legit DNF regardless of how inexperienced the cacher is.   New cacher problems come with the territory.  

 

Since a search was conducted a DNF, NOTE or NM would be ok here depending on what was found and how certain the cacher was that the pieces they found we're indeed from the cache.    If I read this on one of my cache pages I'd probably want to take a look. 

This is not excuse for not posting the log that best describes the situation.   The text within a log makes the reason for the log clearer but the log itself should convey certain basic information.   It's this basic information that the CHS uses to give reviewers a ballpark snapshot of each cache.    

 

You completely missed what I was saying in every reply on that post.

 

It's almost you were trying so hard to blindly justify your position that you forgot to really read what I wrote.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I get the fact that a dnf can mean a cache is missing.   That's the point you refuse to admit.  

 

I think thebruce0 summed it up well in his last post so you and I will agree to disagree.  .   

 

I think it best to stay away from "a dnf means a cache is missing" entirely. I think it's better phrased "a DNF can be caused by a missing cache". Reduce the confusion.  It's possible that the content written in DNF log may imply the cache is missing, but that's really up to the CO to judge.  Nonetheless, the fact is that DNFs do exist in cases where a cache is missing.

 

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Split hairs much? There's really no interesting difference between someone saying the cache is missing and someone saying the cache is so likely to be missing we should act as if it is until we have evidence to the contrary.

 

See my point above.

Statistically, 1 or more DNFs can be caused by a missing cache. Therefore the statistics are considered in the algorithm when weighing numerous factors that can contribute to a sub-par geocache health (one that would be generally considered, or perhaps just according to GS, as not providing a positive geocache finding experience).

 

5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

For the last false positive I remember, a couple weeks ago, there was nothing wrong with the cache owner, he just didn't post an OM. And, in any case, "The CO deserved it" doesn't change the fact that it was a false positive: the cache was recently found with a log explicitly explaining why the person finding it knew the cache was in good condition. The next day the reviewer archived it.

 

I find it hard to believe there were absolutely no other mitigating circumstances leading to such an archival. And even if there weren't, a human did the archival. The human might be wrong. The human might be right. I don't know the whole story, so I can't make a judgment on it let alone somehow blame the CHS for the archival.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

A DNF never means "a cache is missing". There's no way to arrive at that meaning.  Only the CO knows if that is true after checking if it is indeed missing.

Any number of reason can exist for someone posting a DNF.

One of those reasons may in fact be that the cache is missing. That is the statistic that is weighed into the algorithm.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Because there's more to the algorithm than "UH OH DNF ALERT ALERT FIX OR ARCHIVE!", including false positives *sigh*

Again, if the CHS assumed a DNF meant a cache is missing, then EVERY cache with a DNF would be getting pinged. They're not. The CHS does not treat a DNF log like a cache has a problem.

 

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

DNFs can mean many things, and the CHS weighs DNF logs, amongst other factors to which we are not privvy, to determine whether to judge a cache as potentially needing an owner checkup, in order to pre-emptively avert a possible negative geocache finding experience.

 

My best guess from looking at the many examples of caches with CHS pings that have been posted in the forums over the years, is that it's just looking at the ratio of DNFs to finds, probably with some weighting for the difficulty rating of the cache and the age of the logs. There's no magical "X" factor needed to explain why some caches are pinged after one or two DNFs but others aren't - the ones getting pinged simply don't have enough recent finds to cancel out the negative effect of the DNFs.

 

The problem is that COs have no control over how many finds a cache gets before someone DNFs it.

Share this post


Link to post

Right. The best we can get is "we don't know".  And as far as I'm concerned, the drawback to not knowing isn't worth the effort to sleuth it out.  To me it's just such a non-issue.  Mountains out of molehills.  And the best I can do is if I see someone shorting out over it, is explain why I don't think it's nearly as bad as it seems, and hope it's enough to increase their calm and just be able to enjoy caching and owning again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think there is.   When I read  "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it."  I see that as reaching GZ and searching for the cache.     Considering people (reviewers and cachers alike)  will use that information to form an opinion on the condition of that cache and whether or not they're going to attempt it,  it seems relevant that they understand that I did meet those specific requirements.        

 

"Looking for a cache" doesn't just start when you reach GZ. The cache's camo is just one of the two obstacles the CO has put in the way of the finder. The other is terrain. Likewise "finding" a cache is more than just seeing it, it means opening the container and signing the logbook. If I go looking for a cache but can't complete the finding ritual, either because the camo outwitted me or the terrain prevented me from getting my hands on the logbook, then it's a DNF. Consider this DNF of mine on a T4 cache a few years back:

 

Quote

Hmm, I'd been wondering why this was rated T4 when it was at the end of a mountain bike friendly fire trail, but as I suspected, it was all in the last metre! I could see the rim of the cache hiding behind its out-of-place looking rock, and while I could've lowered myself down onto the ledge, I think, with my short legs and wonky sense of balance I was unsure if I'd be able to safely push myself back up again. So in the end I put safety before smiley and walked away. Thanks for a great bushwalk, though, I really enjoyed it, and, well, I found where it was, which is good enough for me.

 

I tried to find it but didn't succeed; the terrain defeated me. For me, the cache was "extra difficult to find" so it even fits perfectly into that Help Centre definition of a DNF, even though I could see the cache sitting smugly just out reach under that ledge so the probability of it being missing was zero.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

"Looking for a cache" doesn't just start when you reach GZ. The cache's camo is just one of the two obstacles the CO has put in the way of the finder. The other is terrain. Likewise "finding" a cache is more than just seeing it, it means opening the container and signing the logbook. If I go looking for a cache but can't complete the finding ritual, either because the camo outwitted me or the terrain prevented me from getting my hands on the logbook, then it's a DNF.

 

That's a lot like how I do it. Generally if I start the hunt and don't sign the log, it's a DNF. Maybe I'll try again someday, and that's where I might review my DNF list.

 

But I don't get nutty about it. One day I was trying to get into Peachtree City and the road construction and resulting traffic nightmare caused me to turn back, eight miles from the first cache. I was planning to go to the cache area, but didn't begin what any rational person would insist was “starting the hunt”. It's not too far from that old argument that “well in that case, every cache in the world needs to be logged as a DNF”. That's nutty. I don't do that.

 

Often the DNF is because I can't find it (I am very bad at Geocaching). Definitely if the cache situation is an unpleasant surprise upon arrival. Recently it was due to the entire parking lot being gated and locked in a fancy subdivision... a situation that is not an impediment to any other cachers, nor even mentioned.

 

But like you, I will explain my situation when I type the DNF log. It will be clear that there's not necessarily any problem at the cache site. But I note the issue that prevented me from signing the log.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

That's because it's not true. A DNF cannot possibly mean a cache is missing because -- guess what? -- he didn't find it. For heaven's sake. You can take a DNF as one piece of evidence and build up a case suggesting the cache might be missing, but that doesn't mean a DNF can mean the cache is missing.

 

That's where we need the cache owner to go verify, because ultimately it is the owner who can confirm it's missing or not. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To me, there is one problem with the "it could be handled with a Note" argument against always using a DNF when a cache isn't found.  A Note doesn't flag the cache in the system as on I've looked for but didn't find.  Notes don't show up on the cache page heading like Finds & DNF's do, nor do they show up on the map.  So I just don't buy the "use a Note instead" argument.  As an example, just recently I tried for a cache along a major road, with parking co-ords on a side street with a comment that it was an easy walk on the sidewalk to GZ.  When I got to the parking area there were signs all over - for blocks around - saying 'no parking from 7:30 to 4:00'.  I didn't have time to park a quarter mile (or more) away and walk in, so I had to move on.  To me this is a legitiment use of a DNF log.  Next time I'm looking at that area I'll see the blue frown and can see what the issue was last time.  With a Note I may make the same 'mistake' if I'm there during the school hours again.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Are we back to DNF definitions again? Groan.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Back to the OP's question, here's a D5 example that that has 4 finds, 535 DNF's, and 25 OM logs. IMO, this is a great example of using the OM. This is a seasonally available cache. The CO disables it during the winter months. They check on it at the start and end of every season, and approximately every 2 to 3 months during the season. The DNF to OM ration is approximately 1 OM for every 21 DNF's. If you read the OM logs, they are health checks. For the most part, no physical maintenance was actually performed. But, if I was looking at the main page, I get the sense that this cache is well maintained.

Edited by Wet Pancake Touring Club

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/1/2018 at 2:13 PM, thebruce0 said:

I'm guessing they don't have the manpower to manually respond to every listing that's flagged by the CHS; thus the email nudge.

 

That email nudge, for inactive COs and COs who have no intention of doing maintenance, means it falls back into the laps of the reviewer.  If they don't have time for the ones that are flagged in this manner, which we would all agree is the majority of the caches out there that need maintenance, then this step does very little to manage a load that reviewers aren't going to be able to handle, which means the listing sits there in perpetuity until such time as a reviewer actually gets time to do something about it.  That's part of the ineffectiveness of this entire process.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

That email nudge, for inactive COs and COs who have no intention of doing maintenance, means it falls back into the laps of the reviewer.

 

Yes but this is a direct "this user is non-responsive" rather than them seeking them out. It's a confirmed issue (unresponsive owner) for the reviewer to look into, rather than unconfirmed searching (which reviewers are still free to do if they wish).

 

4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

If they don't have time for the ones that are flagged in this manner, which we would all agree is the majority of the caches out there that need maintenance, then this step does very little to manage a load that reviewers aren't going to be able to handle

 

I disagree. As these caches are not yet flagged/reported for the reviewer, the potential is ALL caches for the reviewer to look at. If the CHS highlights a portion of those caches as potentially needing problems, and a portion of those get no response from their owners, that is a much smaller segment of all caches out there that are now propped up for the reviewer to check on at their discretion. Much more reasonable.

 

6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

which means the listing sits there in perpetuity until such time as a reviewer actually gets time to do something about it

 

The alternative is a sytem that has a 100% success rate for identifying caches that will turn into maintenance issues or cache owners that are unresponsive. Nope, not possible. This system highlights potential problems and boost the more likely listings to reviewer attention. It improves their workflow. Caches that would sit in perpetuity (with no reported issues) will happen without the tool, and may happen with the tool. Improvement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:

"Looking for a cache" doesn't just start when you reach GZ.

 I think to post a DNF is dose.  

 

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:

Likewise "finding" a cache is more than just seeing it, it means opening the container and signing the logbook

IMO you have to satisfy all three of those requirements to log a FIND.    If you fail to accomplish any of those three I think a NOTE should be posted. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:

the camo outwitted me

If your at GZ than this is a DNF

 

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:

even though I could see the cache sitting smugly just out reach under that ledge so the probability of it being missing was zero.

So even though you know that a DNF can mean a cache is missing and the CHS takes that into consideration you still insist on posting a DNF in these situations.

Mind boggling. 

 

We can go around in circle like this all day.   I can't explain any further why I don't think DNFs should be posted in many of those situations other than a NOTE would serve the purpose of conveying the proper information without any possibility of negatively effecting a cache's health score. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
On 11/3/2018 at 7:06 AM, barefootjeff said:

even though I could see the cache sitting smugly just out reach under that ledge so the probability of it being missing was zero.

So even though you know that a DNF can mean a cache is missing and the CHS takes that into consideration you still insist on posting a DNF in these situations.

Mind boggling. 

 

Because logging a DNF in that situation is what the Help Centre says to do: Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. I was looking for the cache but did not find it. Tick. I was informing the CO and other finders that it was extra difficult for me to find. Tick. "Or possibly missing" is another possible option, but it doesn't say "AND possibly missing", does it? I don't have to tick that in order for it to be a DNF.

 

Let me put this another way. Suppose you've thoroughly but unsuccessfully searched for a cache and logged your DNF, but subsequently find out the cache wasn't missing (maybe someone else found it shortly afterwards, or you went back for a successful second attempt, or even sent photos to the CO who's said he can see the cache in one of them), do you go back and change your DNF to a note? If not, why not? The CHS doesn't know that you now know the cache wasn't missing and will still count your DNF as a negative score against the cache's health, and we now know from examples posted recently in the forums that a subsequent find doesn't erase the negative impact of preceding DNFs. How is that any different, in terms of its CHS impact, from me logging a DNF on a cache I can see but not reach?

 

Would you be arguing against using a DNF in that situation if the CHS didn't exist? If not, then clearly the CHS is wrong to be interpreting DNF logs the way it does. Most cachers have probably never even heard of the CHS - only a tiny handful ever visit these forums and will only likely learn of it when they get the email on one of their hides - so most will continue to log DNFs the way they always have. All those DNFs I quoted earlier from my own hides (the ones you said shouldn't have been DNFs) are proof of that. Most of those were logged by very experienced cachers who've been in the game for a decade or more and know what they're doing. The CHS needs to adapt to the way people use DNFs in the real world, which is also the way the Help Centre says to use them, not the other way around, and the only way that's going to happen is for people to keep using DNFs in all those situations where they just want to say "I tried to find the cache but didn't succeed" and using all the tools provided for that log type, like the blue frowny on the map and the list of DNFs as a reminder of those caches they might want to go back to and try again. The CHS really is the odd man out here in the way it treats DNFs - it's playing to a different set of rules to what's documented in the Help Centre.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Because logging a DNF in that situation is what the Help Centre says to do: Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. I was looking for the cache but did not find it. Tick. I was informing the CO and other finders that it was extra difficult for me to find. Tick. "Or possibly missing" is another possible option, but it doesn't say "AND possibly missing", does it? I don't have to tick that in order for it to be a DNF.

 

What it comes down to is the same old argument we've had forever:  what does it mean to "look for a cache"?  For me, the bare minimum is being at the posted coordinates (or the solved coordinates on a multi or mystery).  For others, all it takes is thinking about going to the posted coordinates, but getting distracted by a shiny object on the way to their car.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

What it comes down to is the same old argument we've had forever:  what does it mean to "look for a cache"?  For me, the bare minimum is being at the posted coordinates (or the solved coordinates on a multi or mystery).  For others, all it takes is thinking about going to the posted coordinates, but getting distracted by a shiny object on the way to their car.

 

In that particular DNF which justintim1999 is objecting to, I'd been searching around GZ for the best part of an hour and was standing on top of the ledge under which the cache was hidden. Is that near enough to being at the posted coordinates? When I finally spotted the cache under that ledge but realised I couldn't safely get down to reach it, I logged my DNF, and with that blue frowny on the map to remind me of my failure, I came back a year later with a ladder and converted that DNF into a find. Is that really so wrong?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

In that particular DNF which justintim1999 is objecting to, I'd been searching around GZ for the best part of an hour and was standing on top of the ledge under which the cache was hidden. Is that near enough to being at the posted coordinates? When I finally spotted the cache under that ledge but realised I couldn't safely get down to reach it, I logged my DNF, and with that blue frowny on the map to remind me of my failure, I came back a year later with a ladder and converted that DNF into a find. Is that really so wrong?

 

Hey, I never said one way is objectively "wrong".  Wrong for me...I would post a Note if I saw the cache because I physically found it but could not log it.  But hey, we've done all this before in a myriad of threads...so no point in rehashing that.  As it pertains to the CHS, it's really an issue that Groundspeak doesn't really have a good handle on (though I frankly believe they THINK they do).  I personally feel that DNFs should play a MUCH smaller role in determining that score. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Come on y'all, hasn't this DNF thing gone OT for long enough?????

Get back to the subject or has enough been said?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

In that particular DNF which justintim1999 is objecting to, I'd been searching around GZ for the best part of an hour and was standing on top of the ledge under which the cache was hidden. Is that near enough to being at the posted coordinates? When I finally spotted the cache under that ledge but realised I couldn't safely get down to reach it

Since I know the cache is not missing and I know how DNFs effect a caches health score, I would have posted a Note in this situation. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

I logged my DNF, and with that blue frowny on the map to remind me of my failure, I came back a year later with a ladder and converted that DNF into a find.

This is part of the problem.  DNFs are not place holders for caches you'd like to attempt again.  I don't think they were designed to be used that way.   Bookmarks were probably intended for that purpose.    I use DNFs to indicate I failed to find the cache after a actual search.    

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

Is that really so wrong?

So wrong?  No.   But is it right?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Since I know the cache is not missing and I know how DNFs effect a caches health score, I would have posted a Note in this situation. 

 

Which is a part of the problem with DNFs being used as part (I'd argue a main part) of the CHS.  I would have posted the DNF as well.  See below for why.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This is part of the problem.  DNFs are not place holders for caches you'd like to attempt again.

 

Exactly how is a blue frowny face a problem?  It is on the map to show you didn't find it and that it's still there to be found by the person who has it on their map.  The DNF is the reason I'd like to try to find it again.  For me, avenging a previous DNF is one of the great enjoyments I get out of caching.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Bookmarks were probably intended for that purpose.

 

I don't know many cachers who have a DNF bookmark list.  I'm sure there are some but I don't think that was their "main" intent.  I do know many who put DNFs on a watchlist instead.  I just use the map.  It's far easier to see ones I've attempted and DNFed as well as ones I've never attempted.  Adding to that, a note wouldn't show on the map, which wouldn't allow me to recall anything about my original search (or subsequent searches).

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I use DNFs to indicate I failed to find the cache after a actual search.

 

To help clarify when to log a DNF, I find that it helps to define what a find actually is.  According to the help center, "You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."  If the find is only allowable if you sign the logbook, then it stands to reason that you didn't find it if you didn't sign the logbook, even if that means that you actually saw the cache.  That goes for gadget caches as well.  I physically found it but I was unable to sign the log, thereby rendering the DNF as the log of choice.  I log DNFs on multis that I didn't complete because at the end of my time searching, I wasn't able to do the required actions to log it as found.  I understand the note option, particularly for multis, but not for other caches that don't have multiple stages.  As far as I remember, I've only written one note on a multi because I stopped by the first stage to get the coordinates to the final, but the second stage was over 20 miles away and in the opposite direction of where I was heading.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

 If the find is only allowable if you sign the logbook, then it stands to reason that you didn't find it if you didn't sign the logbook, even if that means that you actually saw the cache.  

 

 

 

Here we go again...redefining the meaning of "find". 

 

No, no, no.  There's a difference between FINDING a cache and LOGGING A FIND on geocaching.com.  Dear lord...

 

tenor.gif?itemid=6012433

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

 

Here we go again...redefining the meaning of "find". 

 

No, no, no.  There's a difference between FINDING a cache and LOGGING A FIND on geocaching.com.  Dear lord...

 

Don't think you have to get too much in an uproar about this. @coachstahly was simply directly quoting what constitutes as a logged find according to the official help center page. I am frankly not sure why anyone would mark a Geocache as being found without signing the log, unless there is the exception of the container or log-sheet being damaged that singing cannot be done. In which case,  log it with a Needs Maintenance so the CO can at least be notified or it can be eventually rendered as archived.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
On 11/5/2018 at 1:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

In that particular DNF which justintim1999 is objecting to, I'd been searching around GZ for the best part of an hour and was standing on top of the ledge under which the cache was hidden. Is that near enough to being at the posted coordinates? When I finally spotted the cache under that ledge but realised I couldn't safely get down to reach it

 Since I know the cache is not missing and I know how DNFs effect a caches health score, I would have posted a Note in this situation. 

How do I know it isn't missing? Maybe the thing under the ledge isn't the cache at all. Until I have it in my hands and open it, and see the log inside, it could be something else. Since I reached GZ, searched for the cache, and did not find it, I would log a DNF.

 

And I don't care about the bugs in the CHS. Those bugs should be fixed. Logging practices should not be dictated by them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Since I know the cache is not missing and I know how DNFs effect a caches health score, I would have posted a Note in this situation. 

 

Which is a part of the problem with DNFs being used as part (I'd argue a main part) of the CHS.  I would have posted the DNF as well.

 

Which is why the CHS doesn't assume a DNF means a cache is missing or needs maintenance.

Log DNFs as you want to log DNFs. Whether you're as strict as justin, or as literal as the label "did not find".  Just make sure your logs are meaningful to other geocachers. That is the most important thing.  Let the CHS deal with interpreting that. Even if it's faulty.

 

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

And I don't care about the bugs in the CHS. Those bugs should be fixed. Logging practices should not be dictated by them.

 

This.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, niraD said:

And I don't care about the bugs in the CHS. Those bugs should be fixed. Logging practices should not be dictated by them.

This.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Log DNFs as you want to log DNFs. Whether you're as strict as justin, or as literal as the label "did not find".  Just make sure your logs are meaningful to other geocachers. That is the most important thing. 

 

This.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Log DNFs as you want to log DNFs. Whether you're as strict as justin, or as literal as the label "did not find".  Just make sure your logs are meaningful to other geocachers. That is the most important thing.  Let the CHS deal with interpreting that. Even if it's faulty.

Naturally I agree completely with your advice to people posting logs. All logs should be logged with the intention of being useful to players, not robots.

 

I disagree with your last two sentences, however. I see no reason to accept a faulty CHS, and I consider it ridiculous to expect it to deal with interpreting meaningful logs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If by "no reason to accept a faulty CHS" you mean continue to provide constructive feedback in order to improve it (whether heard or not), I completely agree. If you mean merely to hold an opinion that it's crap should be scrapped, I respect one's right to hold that opinion (but recommend a productive application of that opinion, or one that's beneficial to the community).

 

And, I don't expect the algorithm to "deal with interpreting meaningful logs" - not in the slightest. Its intent is to nudge a user based on analyzing known statistics and data correlations with the intent of leading to more positive outcomes and results (both for users' and reviewers' participation in the system) in the long term than false positives and the angst that comes with them.

 

When I said "let the CHS deal with interpreting that" it was not in reference to "making sure logs are meaningful to other geocachers", it was in reference to determining a reasonable course of action based on the logs and however Groundspeak chooses to weigh any number of factors, towards a generally better geocaching experience for the overall community; without assuming it's "perfect" (ie, "even if it's faulty").

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If by "no reason to accept a faulty CHS" you mean continue to provide constructive feedback in order to improve it (whether heard or not), I completely agree. If you mean merely to hold an opinion that it's crap should be scrapped, I respect one's right to hold that opinion (but recommend a productive application of that opinion, or one that's beneficial to the community).

I consider reasoned arguments for why it should be considered crap and be scrapped to be "constructive feedback" as much as feedback that accepts it as merely flawed. Our difference of opinion is precisely over whether the CHS should be considered beneficial to the community. I take your position to be that we should just leave that little detail to GS and accept it that it's good for us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, dprovan said:

Our difference of opinion is precisely over whether the CHS should be considered beneficial to the community. I take your position to be that we should just leave that little detail to GS and accept it that it's good for us.

 

My opinion differs in the significance of how much the CHS negatively affects the community. I believe feedback from the other side of the wall that says it's already been of benefit, and I think mountains are being made from molehills about its negative effect on this side of the wall. I don't blindly "accept that it's good for us".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

My opinion differs in the significance of how much the CHS negatively affects the community. I believe feedback from the other side of the wall that says it's already been of benefit, and I think mountains are being made from molehills about its negative effect on this side of the wall. I don't blindly "accept that it's good for us".

Just to be clear, what I consider negative is the reviewers becoming cache nannies. The CHS is merely a symptom of that change. Having said that, the CHS exemplifies some of the negatives of quality driven by central authority. I think the negative effects of making COs feel like children and forcing loggers to log for the benefit of the robot are significant. But that's just my opinion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:

Which is a part of the problem with DNFs being used as part (I'd argue a main part) of the CHS.  I would have posted the DNF as well.  See below for why.

It all comes down to whether or not multiple DNFs can indicate a problem with a cache.  If you believe it can then the CHS should take it into consideration. 

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:

Exactly how is a blue frowny face a problem?

 It's only a problem when people are posting them without actually searching and those DNFs could negatively impact the Cache Health Score. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:

I physically found it but I was unable to sign the log, thereby rendering the DNF as the log of choice.

I found the cache but I'm logging a Did Not Find.     To me that doesn't make sense. 

 

Before the advent of the CHS I guess it didn't matter much if you used a DNF that way.  Now it dose.    I've defined what I think a DNF should be and only use them in that context in an effort to eliminate the possibility of my DNF negatively impacting a cache's Health Score.   All I'm asking is for others to look at the issue objectively and decide for them selves what makes sense.      

 

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:

If the find is only allowable if you sign the logbook, then it stands to reason that you didn't find it if you didn't sign the logbook, even if that means that you actually saw the cache

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a:

 

DNF -  because you found it

 

NM -  because unless there are visible signs of an issue with the cache container or it's surroundings,   you have no idea what the condition of the inside of the cache or the log is.

 

Find -  because you didn't sign the log

 

What else is there but a NOTE?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
On 11/9/2018 at 3:53 PM, coachstahly said:

If the find is only allowable if you sign the logbook, then it stands to reason that you didn't find it if you didn't sign the logbook, even if that means that you actually saw the cache

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a:

 

DNF -  because you found it

 

coachstahly is correct.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2018 at 7:56 PM, dprovan said:
On 11/10/2018 at 4:53 PM, thebruce0 said:

My opinion differs in the significance of how much the CHS negatively affects the community. I believe feedback from the other side of the wall that says it's already been of benefit, and I think mountains are being made from molehills about its negative effect on this side of the wall. I don't blindly "accept that it's good for us".

Just to be clear, what I consider negative is the reviewers becoming cache nannies. The CHS is merely a symptom of that change.

 

I don't want reviewers to have to be "cache nannies" either (nor do I think they want to be that either). But GS obviously feels that there are enough "children" owners out there to have to enable reviewers - if they choose to - to better identify the problem owners and caches earlier and deal with them accordingly before they become bigger problems for the greater community. Again, reviewers aren't required to be "cache nannies". The tool allows them to more efficiently do what they already signed up for. And at least in my area they seem to very much appreciate the tool.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/9/2018 at 11:11 AM, J Grouchy said:

No, no, no.  There's a difference between FINDING a cache and LOGGING A FIND on geocaching.com.  Dear lord...

 

So you find caches without logging them online?  I don't quite understand the point of that.  To get credit for a find, you have to log it online.  Your count goes +1 each time you log it online, not each time you "find" the container but don't sign the log.  You're correct that there's a difference, but it makes no sense to me to say you "found it" when there's no proof on the site that you actually did.  My post was with regard to filing an online "Found it" log, not the act of finding, which can have two outcomes as it pertains to the online portion, whereby your find count goes up or stays the same.  To prevent any confusion, perhaps locate should be used, rather than find to indicate that you could see the container.

 

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I found the cache but I'm logging a Did Not Find.

 

You located the cache, not "found" it, because you're in the act of logging it online.  See above.  You may have found the container but you didn't sign the log.  Therefore, you can't get credit for a find if you log it online, which means the opposite must be true.

 

22 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a:

 

DNF -  because you found it

 

You located the container, not the log.  You're specifically talking about a filing an online log, as am I.  You're using an incorrect definition of a find (as it pertains to logging it online) to help argue that it's not a DNF.  You're equating locating the container with finding the cache which, according to GS' definition of what allows you to file a found log online, are two different things.  In order to log the find online, you MUST sign the log.  If you can see the cache but can't retrieve it, there's no way you can sign the log. Both of us can agree that signing the logbook is what allows you to claim the find (online).  You're trying to argue that not signing the log isn't grounds for a DNF and should only be a note instead.

 

I've only found one or two monkey puzzles, but they make for good examples in this situation.  If you locate the monkey puzzle but can't figure out how to open it to sign the log, it's a DNF.  The entire point of the puzzle is to frustrate the seeker by making it difficult to retrieve the log which would allow for a find.  The DNF log will let everyone know that you located the container but couldn't sign the log because you couldn't figure it out.  By writing a note, you would basically be saying that this isn't a DNF because I actually had the container in my hand but couldn't sign the log.  To me, that's the definition of a DNF, again, as it pertains to logging it online (to appease J Grouchy).  You failed to do one of the two things set out that define what a find is for online logging purposes.

 

For me, a note would work when you can't even fulfill the very first guideline of what constitutes an online find, which is visit the coordinates.  I know there are some who post DNFs when they can't even get to GZ, and in the strictest interpretation of what constitutes a find, they'd be right because they haven't fulfilled the first part of what would allow them to claim a find online.  While I personally disagree because I believe a search begins when you actually get to the posted coordinates, I'm not going to say they're completely off their rockers either.  Technically, they're correct because they couldn't get to the coordinates, which would be grounds for a DNF.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

It's only a problem when people are posting them without actually searching and those DNFs could negatively impact the Cache Health Score. 

 

So you went to GZ and searched and actually saw the cache, but couldn't access it to sign the log, for whatever reason.  In the example provided, a search was made, the container was located but the log couldn't be signed.  Yet, you continue to argue that it's not a DNF and is a note instead.  Let's rephrase your sentence.  A DNF is only a problem when people are posting them without actually searching and those DNFs  could negatively impact the Cache Health Score.  So it's therefore NOT a problem when people are actually searching for the cache, yet you're saying that it actually is.  By that logic, every single DNF is a problem.  DNFs aren't problems; they're logs that state you couldn't do what was needed to do in order to claim a find online, which is to visit the coordinates and sign the log. Failure to do both of those is grounds for a DNF.  If you did one (visit the coordinates) but not the other, I'd say you have an even greater claim to a DNF because you actually fulfilled one of the requirements to log a find.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Before the advent of the CHS I guess it didn't matter much if you used a DNF that way.  Now it dose.    I've defined what I think a DNF should be and only use them in that context in an effort to eliminate the possibility of my DNF negatively impacting a cache's Health Score.   All I'm asking is for others to look at the issue objectively and decide for them selves what makes sense.

Fix the CHS... and the horse it rode in on.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:25 AM, niraD said:

Logging practices should not be dictated by them.

If logs are designed to convey basic information and people will make various decisions based on those logs,  I would think the conditions in which those logs are used should be consistent. 

 

4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You located the cache, not "found" it

That's the rub.  Why would you post one that,  combined with other DNFs , can represent the possibility that a cache is missing especially when you can see the cache and know it's not missing?

 

There's a difference between finding a cache and completing the requirements to log it as such.  If you find the container can you not assume the log is in it?    Posting a NOTE that you found it and couldn't retrieve it conveys different information than posting a DNF explaining the same thing.   One effects the CHS the other doesn't.   

 

I have specific requirements for posting a Find and a DNF and anything that doesn't fit within those requirements is conveyed by a note.   Regardless if you agree or disagree with  with the CHS system the fact is DNFs do effect the score and for that reason alone I won't post one in some of the situations you've mentioned.    To me it's just common sense. 

 

I'm sure the fact that DNFs are used in some of these situations have been taken into consideration by GS so changing the way one uses them isn't a big deal. 

 

The way I use them isn't going to hurt the system one way or the other.          

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, niraD said:

Fix the CHS... and the horse it rode in on.

Change the way you log your caches and leave the horse alone.   What's it ever done to you?

Share this post


Link to post

Or don't kill the CHS, let TPTB work on improving the CHS, and don't change the way you log your DNFs, however you do so. Because it's not that big of a deal.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

So you find caches without logging them online?  I don't quite understand the point of that. To get credit for a find, you have to log it online.

 

I'm now over a hundred found without logging, and more than half the events I attend too.

I've never logged tftc (the other half has), so rather than say, "This cache was a piece of carp.  I could have done so many other things with my time...", I simply don't log it.

On "every other Tuesday" or similar Events, nothing much different month-to-month, I don't log them attended. 

I meet friends on a regular basis without the need for an event too.  :)

 

No interest in stats or competition, if the site would delete caches I've already found from the system, I'd actually be happier with no "find credit".

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, reviewers aren't required to be "cache nannies".

Where did you hear that? I see no evidence of it. From what I can see, reviewers are universally patrolling and policing cache listings now. I'm not sure what reviewer would do that just for fun in an area like mine where "children owners" are a non-existent problem. We've also been told that reviewers were told to implement a cache monitoring plan based on CHS, which sounds a lot to me as if it's required. The best I could say in defense of your statement is that it might not be officially required, but they're all doing it whether it's required or not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Change the way you log your caches and leave the horse alone.   What's it ever done to you?

Well, to begin with, it's forcing me to log caches the wrong way. Specifically, it's requiring that I forget about the community in which I'm logging the cache and, instead, worry only about the automated, centralized system that's  been given control of our caching environment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, reviewers aren't required to be "cache nannies".

Where did you hear that? I see no evidence of it. From what I can see, reviewers are universally patrolling and policing cache listings now. I'm not sure what reviewer would do that just for fun in an area like mine where "children owners" are a non-existent problem. We've also been told that reviewers were told to implement a cache monitoring plan based on CHS, which sounds a lot to me as if it's required. The best I could say in defense of your statement is that it might not be officially required, but they're all doing it whether it's required or not.

 

1. Where did I hear that? Inferred from being 99% confident they've never been told as a reviewer "you are required to be a cache nanny."

 

2. (bold) Which is how I interpret "not required". As in, if reviewers don't use it, they rescind their title. And from everything I've heard, A] they like to use it and B] I haven't heard any say they've been told they "must" use it -- Even if it does happen that they "must" as mandated by HQ as part of their regular responsibilities, if they enjoy using it and prefer using it, then it's a non-issue.  They are using it because it helps them better do what they signed up to do. And the only public feedback I've seen from reviewers is that the CHS and tool is helpful for them.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You located the cache, not "found" it

That's the rub.  Why would you post one that,  combined with other DNFs , can represent the possibility that a cache is missing especially when you can see the cache and know it's not missing?

 

There's a difference between finding a cache and completing the requirements to log it as such.  If you find the container can you not assume the log is in it?    Posting a NOTE that you found it and couldn't retrieve it conveys different information than posting a DNF explaining the same thing.   One effects the CHS the other doesn't.   

 

I have specific requirements for posting a Find and a DNF and anything that doesn't fit within those requirements is conveyed by a note.   Regardless if you agree or disagree with  with the CHS system the fact is DNFs do effect the score and for that reason alone I won't post one in some of the situations you've mentioned.    To me it's just common sense. 

 

I'm sure the fact that DNFs are used in some of these situations have been taken into consideration by GS so changing the way one uses them isn't a big deal. 

 

The way I use them isn't going to hurt the system one way or the other.     

Just because a DNF CAN represent the possibility a cache is missing (your words) doesn't - and shouldn't - mean it ONLY means it missing possibly. 

 

And just because you can see a container, that doesn't mean that's the cache.  The only real way of knowing what you've seen is a cache is to open it and see it there is a log to sign.  It could be trash, a letterbox or a red herring. 

 

And what you call "common sense" doesn't seem that common to me (here in the forums and talking to other cachers), so while it's you way of doing it, it doesn't mean you can dictate to everyone else.

 

If GS has taken the use of DNFs into consideration, then not changing the way one uses them isn't a big deal.

 

To me, it's not my job to maintain the CHS on someone's cache, I'm simple recording my caching history - finding or not finding caches.  To me it's just common sense. ;)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If logs are designed to convey basic information and people will make various decisions based on those logs,  I would think the conditions in which those logs are used should be consistent. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda... The fact is that people will post logs the way they post logs. There are clear-cut situations where everyone will agree that a Find is appropriate, or a DNF is appropriate, or whatever. But there are other situations where reasonable people will disagree. The CHS must accommodate that.

 

56 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Change the way you log your caches and leave the horse alone.   What's it ever done to you?

Even if everyone here in the forums changes the way we log caches to match your ideal, the fast majority of geocachers will continue to post logs the way they post logs. The CHS must accommodate that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a:

 

DNF -  because you found it

 

NM -  because unless there are visible signs of an issue with the cache container or it's surroundings,   you have no idea what the condition of the inside of the cache or the log is.

 

Find -  because you didn't sign the log

 

What else is there but a NOTE?

 

One time I went to find a cache and as I was retrieving the container I accidentally pushed the container (I touched the container) further into a hole in a rock wall.  I could see the cache but didn't sign the log.   In this case I posted a DNF *and* a NM log (a NM log can be posted in addition to a Found It or a DNF). 

 

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it, a DNF means that you located the container, but you didn't "find" the cache.  In that scenario, I think it's acceptable to post a DNF because a future seeker of the cache is likely going to have the same result.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

So you find caches without logging them online?  I don't quite understand the point of that.  To get credit for a find, you have to log it online.  Your count goes +1 each time you log it online, not each time you "find" the container but don't sign the log.  You're correct that there's a difference, but it makes no sense to me to say you "found it" when there's no proof on the site that you actually did.  My post was with regard to filing an online "Found it" log, not the act of finding, which can have two outcomes as it pertains to the online portion, whereby your find count goes up or stays the same.  To prevent any confusion, perhaps locate should be used, rather than find to indicate that you could see the container.

 

 

HUH? What are you talking about?

No.  If I find the cache container but am unable to reach it, I post a Note, not a DNF....because I physically/visually located it but was not able to perform the action required to log the find online.

 

For some reason, this seems to actually confuse people and I honestly do not understand why.  Instead, they seem determined to claim that Groundspeak is "redefining" the term "found".  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it, a DNF means that you located the container, but you didn't "find" the cache.  

 

Not at all...but I'm over trying to figure out why people are confused about simple english language.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×