Jump to content

Excessive owner maintenence logs!


learn2mine
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

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

 

I'm not confused about simple english language.  One thing that I understand is that words can have different meanings, depending on the context. 

 

In the context of geocaching "finding a geocache" *is* different from just "locating a geocache".    If I lost my car keys, then looked for them and discovered they were under the couch, it would be accurate to say that I "found" my car keys. However, in the context of geocaching we can't take credit for "finding" a geocache unless we've discovered it's location *and* have signed the log.  

 

You're using a general definition of "find" or "found", while I'm using the more specific definition as it relates to geocaching.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I'm not confused about simple english language.  One thing that I understand is that words can have different meanings, depending on the context. 

 

In the context of geocaching "finding a geocache" *is* different from just "locating a geocache".    If I lost my car keys, then looked for them and discovered they were under the couch, it would be accurate to say that I "found" my car keys. However, in the context of geocaching we can't take credit for "finding" a geocache unless we've discovered it's location *and* have signed the log.  

 

You're using a general definition of "find" or "found", while I'm using the more specific definition as it relates to geocaching.

 

So if you spot your keys down a sewer grating but can't reach them, you tell folks you didn't find them...or do you note that you found them but were unable to reach them?

 

Again, it's all pretty clear-cut to me...but enough people in here seem to think it's a binary choice: Found or DNF.  I just happen to believe that isn't logical.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 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.

 

So I'll ask you again, if you've logged a DNF on a cache you searched thoroughly for but couldn't locate, let alone sign the log, but subsequently you learn that it's not missing (someone else found it shortly after your search, you go back the next day with fresh eyes and find it this time, or perhaps you even sent photos of GZ to the CO and he's pointed out the cache in one of them), do you go back and either delete your DNF or change it to a note? If not, why not? That DNF is still negatively impacting the cache's CHS even though you now know there's nothing wrong with the cache. How is that any different, in terms of the impact on the CHS, to me logging a DNF on a cache I can see but can't reach?

 

And if you do go back and delete your DNF or change it to a note, surely that's defeating one of the reasons the Help Centre gives for saying logging DNFs is important, namely to indicate to the CO and future seekers that the cache might be extra-difficult to find. A cache can still be extra-difficult to find even if it isn't missing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Find, in the context of "Found It" log online = signature in the logsheet.

 

Find, in the context of "Did not find" log online = ......??

 

That is the definition problem.

If "find" in the latter context means "did not locate the container", then anyone using that definition will likely post a note if they located the container but didn't sign the log.

If "find" in the latter context means "did not sign the logsheet", then anyone using that definition will likely post a DNF for anything other than a "Found It" log.

 

What I'm seeing in this thread are people abiding by either of these definitions, and the argument will never end because that degree of the DNF definition isn't explicitly provided. Let people post the DNF or Note as they see fit (potentially combined with other log types) - that is, most informative to followup cachers and the CO.

 

And, a discussion about the use of DNF in a thread about "Excessive owner maintenance logs" =/

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, dprovan said:

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.

That's ridiculous.   What I'm proposing is all about logging caches "the right way".    Please tell me how the CHS is forcing you to "forget about the community" and how it's "taking control of our caching community?"   If that's not a piece of propaganda intended to scare the average cacher,  I don't know what is.   When reviewers are eliminated and the CHS

is in complete control of our caching community,  then I'll start to worry.    As far as I can tell there are still plenty of checks and balances in place  and reviewers are still in charge of making the decisions.   

 

The real issue for some is the perception that GS is attempting to dictate how we play the game.  To that I say,  If what they're proposing makes sense and is designed to help make the game better, I have no problem making those changes.   I'm not going to drag my heals for no other reason than stubbornness and a sense of entitlement. 

 

What I find interesting here is I honestly believe that most players use DNFs in exactly the same way I do.   Most players would come to the conclusion that posting a DNF without ever really searching just doesn't make sense.    It's only a few who are unwilling to even entertain the idea based on a memory of how the game use to be played and a rabid desire to hold on to something they hade no control over in the first place.   

 

For what it's worth that's how I see it and I haven't seen or read anything that would make me think otherwise.   

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, The Jester said:

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 it doesn't.  But to throw away the idea that it could is wrong so the possibility has to be accounted for somewhere. 

 

19 hours ago, The Jester said:

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. 

So If I find myself in that rare situation where I've found what I think is the cache but I'm either not sure or can't retrieve it,  I choose to post a NOTE instead of a DNF because when in doubt I'd rather not raise the a red flag by posting a DNF on a cache I'm unsure about.   In my eyes that being respectful to the cache owner as well as other people who may attempt that cache.    It's also reduces the chance the CHS will unnecessarily flag that cache for no good reason.  

 

19 hours ago, The Jester said:

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.

I've been accused of putting words in other peoples mouths but I'm not going to do that here.   I'm not dictating anything to anybody because I don't possess the power to do that.   I'm arguing the point and encouraging others to make up there own mind. 

 

19 hours ago, The Jester said:

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

That's exactly what I said.   This is more about people's unwillingness to change even when the change makes perfect sense.  ;)           

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

So I'll ask you again, if you've logged a DNF on a cache you searched thoroughly for but couldn't locate, let alone sign the log, but subsequently you learn that it's not missing (someone else found it shortly after your search, you go back the next day with fresh eyes and find it this time, or perhaps you even sent photos of GZ to the CO and he's pointed out the cache in one of them), do you go back and either delete your DNF or change it to a note?

Nope.   You searched and didn't find it.   A DNF is exactly the right log to post.   I could post that DNF right at GZ and walk 100 feet, turn around, go back and within 30 seconds find the cache and I'd leave the DNF log in place.     Lets say you did all this and didn't find the cache on the second try.   Would you post another DNF?  I doubt it because it simply wouldn't make sense to do that.   

 

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And if you do go back and delete your DNF or change it to a note, surely that's defeating one of the reasons the Help Centre gives for saying logging DNFs is important, namely to indicate to the CO and future seekers that the cache might be extra-difficult to find. A cache can still be extra-difficult to find even if it isn't missing.

  The only reason I would change that DNF to a NOTE after the fact has more to do with personal pride.    If I post a DNF you can be sure I gave it the ole college try and the subsequent find just means I was not on my game that day.    No shame in that.            

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I choose to post a NOTE instead of a DNF because when in doubt I'd rather not raise the a red flag by posting a DNF on a cache I'm unsure about.

So you're letting the CHS dictate how you make your logs.

 

But you know what? That's fine for you. Ain't nothing saying you can't do that. Just don't dictate that others follow suit. If the way they log makes sense to them, and it's reasonable to the community (even if you'd do it differently), then it's just absolutely fine. There's a whole lot of "I do it this way and I think this is the right way" arguing going on here.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I could post that DNF right at GZ and walk 100 feet, turn around, go back and within 30 seconds find the cache and I'd leave the DNF log in place.     Lets say you did all this and didn't find the cache on the second try.   Would you post another DNF?  I doubt it because it simply wouldn't make sense to do that.   

 

Really?  30 seconds and two logs?  That's exactly why I don't post in the field, unless it's to leave a note regarding a first to find.  I consider that one search, not two separate ones due to the short length between the two time periods.  

 

Your logic is skewed a bit here.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then log the find on your return.  2 logs for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then NOT log the DNF.  One log for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  If they're both 2 searches (as you're claiming), then there should be 2 logs.  Where's the consistency?

 

27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So If I find myself in that rare situation where I've found what I think is the cache but I'm either not sure or can't retrieve it,  I choose to post a NOTE instead of a DNF because when in doubt I'd rather not raise the a red flag by posting a DNF on a cache I'm unsure about.   In my eyes that being respectful to the cache owner as well as other people who may attempt that cache.    It's also reduces the chance the CHS will unnecessarily flag that cache for no good reason.  

 

You're advocating for changing the log types because of possibly affecting the CHS of the cache.  That's part of the problem with the CHS.  It's rendering DNFs as "bad", when in fact, they're just logs stating you couldn't find it.  An OM log now lets the public know that the CO has done maintenance as well as resetting the CHS, even when people armchair log it, which was never the purpose before then.  I'd venture to guess that there are more false OM logs now than there were before the CHS, specifically to reset scores to keep a cache alive, rather than actual maintenance.  What would the purpose of a false OM log be before the CHS?  There would be no "reward" for doing so but there is now.

 

47 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What I find interesting here is I honestly believe that most players use DNFs in exactly the same way I do.   Most players would come to the conclusion that posting a DNF without ever really searching just doesn't make sense.

 

Most of us aren't taking issue in the situation you describe above.  We're taking issue with you not logging a DNF when you see the cache but can't retrieve it to sign the log in order to claim the find and then claiming that you're changing the log type from DNF to note to spare the cache the hit from the CHS.  This is an example of how the CHS is affecting the game, and not in a good way.  Would you have logged the DNF or a note before the CHS if you had seen the cache but not been able to sign the log?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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.   

 

No, no, no.  They both convey the same information.  The difference is that one affects the CHS while the other doesn't.  That's not different information; that's a cause and effect situation.  

Link to comment
20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

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".

 

I don't log TFTC either but I'll log something to indicate that I found it so I won't mistakenly go back to it, because there's no online record of me visiting the cache previously.  It's not a stats thing or a competition for me either, other than an indication of how many I've actually found.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Really?  30 seconds and two logs?

It was just an example. 

 

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Your logic is skewed a bit here.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then log the find on your return.  2 logs for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then NOT log the DNF.  One log for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute.  If they're both 2 searches (as you're claiming), then there should be 2 logs.  Where's the consistency?

I think it would be common sense to log the Find on the second encounter because that adds new information to the cache page.  I wouldn't log the second DNF because it adds nothing new.  It would only be re-enforcing the fact that I still couldn't' find the cache and there's no need to negatively impact the CHS by doing that. 

10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You're advocating for changing the log types because of possibly affecting the CHS of the cache

No.  I'm advocating that certain conditions be met to log a DNF.             

 

12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It's rendering DNFs as "bad", when in fact, they're just logs stating you couldn't find it.

No.  It's allowing the DNF to be judged based on an actual search and not as a place holder for caches that you'll like to attempt another day.    The premise is simple.   That DNF means someone reached GZ and searched.   That's all.   Everyone else, including the CHS, can decide exactly what that DNF means in relation to the cache and it's other logs knowing that someone actually tried to find it and didn't.    That DNF would actually carry some weight knowing it meet those basic requirements.     

17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Most of us aren't taking issue in the situation you describe above.  We're taking issue with you not logging a DNF when you see the cache but can't retrieve it to sign the log in order to claim the find and then claiming that you're changing the log type from DNF to note to spare the cache the hit from the CHS.  This is an example of how the CHS is affecting the game, and not in a good way.  Would you have logged the DNF or a note before the CHS if you had seen the cache but not been able to sign the log?

I have no idea what your trying to say here.    I have basic requirements that need to be meet before I use any log.  Because of that I've never changed a log in my life.    This philosophy has proven itself over time and has nothing to do with the CHS.   The fact that I don't arbitrarily post DNFs combined with the way the CHS handles them is in my mind  conformation I'm doing something right.    

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What I'm proposing is all about logging caches "the right way".

Honestly? All this discussion and you still don't understand you're talking about your way, not "the right way"?

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The real issue for some is the perception that GS is attempting to dictate how we play the game.  To that I say,  If what they're proposing makes sense and is designed to help make the game better, I have no problem making those changes.   I'm not going to drag my heals for no other reason than stubbornness and a sense of entitlement. 

As I've explained repeatedly with details, I do not think it makes sense, and I do not think it makes the game better. This is not me mindlessly resisting change. I love change! This is me arguing against something that I think is a mistake.

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What I find interesting here is I honestly believe that most players use DNFs in exactly the same way I do.

What I find interesting is that you still believe this. I admit, I don't know whether most players use DNFs the way you do, but I do know that many players -- possibly most players -- use DNFs the way I do, covering most of the ground between no search that results in posting a note, and signing the log, which results in posting a find. I find it illogical to use a note at both extremes, when you didn't even get to GZ, and when you got to GZ and saw where the cache was. The way I log, a DNF means I got within a certain logical closeness of signing the log, but then didn't for one reason or another.

 

And why shouldn't I use DNF? I explain why I didn't complete the requirements to log a find. For a human, that's just as good as posting a note because all people have to do is read the log and they'll know exactly what happened. The only reason for me to consider not using a DNF is because of the possibility of a superficial peek that doesn't consider the contents of the log. Before, I didn't worry about whether an individual not in the mood to be thorough didn't read my explanation, and now I don't worry about a robot counting log types.

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

Most of us aren't taking issue in the situation you describe above.  We're taking issue with you not logging a DNF when you see the cache but can't retrieve it to sign the log in order to claim the find and then claiming that you're changing the log type from DNF to note to spare the cache the hit from the CHS.

Actually, I am not taking issue with the way he logs. Or the way he claims to log.

 

I am taking issue with his claim that his way is the One True Way™ for anyone to log, and that those who log any differently are logging in a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad way.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That's ridiculous.   What I'm proposing is all about logging caches "the right way".

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

Actually, I am not taking issue with the way he logs. Or the way he claims to log.

 

I am taking issue with his claim that his way is the One True Way™ for anyone to log, and that those who log any differently are logging in a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad way.

 

 

That's fine.   I've explained why logging a DNF in situations where an individual didn't reach GZ and actually search can be detrimental to a cache owner and the CHS.   I haven't  heard any reasons how logging one without meeting those requirements are beneficial or help in any way other than ones own interests.

 

When I was a new cache owner I needlessly ran out to check up on caches with every DNF posted.   I realized later that wasn't necessary but when your a new cache owner you want to make sure your cache is in good shape so people can enjoy finding it and your hyper sensitive to any potential issues.  Now I wish I could say I've mellowed in that regard but for the most part I still over react to every NM and DNF logged on one of my caches.

   

For me it's all about improving Geocaching as a whole and I believe that making a few personal changes could help accomplish that.    Some simply don't want to change the way they do things even if the change is as simple as something like this.  I guess it's that attitude that boggles my mind and pushes me to continue this debate.

 

It's like I've always said.  Don't do something because someone told you to.  Do it because it makes sense.                 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

No.  It's allowing the DNF to be judged based on an actual search and not as a place holder for caches that you'll like to attempt another day.    The premise is simple.   That DNF means someone reached GZ and searched.   That's all.   Everyone else, including the CHS, can decide exactly what that DNF means in relation to the cache and it's other logs knowing that someone actually tried to find it and didn't.    That DNF would actually carry some weight knowing it meet those basic requirements.

 

How about, let the DNF mean what the cacher wants it to (within reason to be understandable and relevant to the community) and then let the CHS interpret each log type in the best way Groundspeak decides. No one has to change their logging styles. CHS is not evil. Is this sentiment falling on deaf ears here?

 

39 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I've explained why logging a DNF in situations where an individual didn't reach GZ and actually search can be detrimental to a cache owner and the CHS.

 

Let the community discontent help Groundspeak shape and improve the CHS algorithm. Don't change logging habits. The CHS is not The Bad Guy.

 

27 minutes ago, niraD said:
40 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's like I've always said.  Don't do something because someone told you to.  Do it because it makes sense.                 

We will. It just might not match the way you do it. :P 

 

Yup.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The CHS is not The Bad Guy.

Have I ever said it was?

 

In fact I happen to think GS is the Good guy in all this.   I just think we could try to make an effort to work with them and the CHS.   

 

27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

How about, let the DNF mean what the cacher wants it to (within reason to be understandable and relevant to the community)

The fact that you had to included "within reason" tells me you get it.   I happen to think that the way some use DNFs are unreasonable. 

 

23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

CHS is not evil.

Have I ever said it was?

 

Where have you been?   I'm one of the biggest supporters of the CHS and I know you know that soooooo what's this all about?  

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If I have to explain why you shouldn't use a dnf to log a cache when you never even got out of your car to look for it,  it's hopeless.    Yet that's what some still do.  

We aren't talking about not searching. We're talking about the other end, searching and seeing the cache, and then filing a DNF.

 

But, yes, that's what some do. I don't, but I have zero problem with it if some want to log a non-search as a DNF because I'm going to read that they didn't get out of their car.

 

And, actually, there are times I'd log a DNF without getting out of my car in special cases, like if the park was unexpectedly closed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Have I ever said it was?

If you read my comment, I'm effectively taking a centrist stance.  I'm disagreeing with you on one thing, while in agreement on another. The other end of the spectrum is making CHS to be the bad guy causing people to change their logging habits to appease it. I didn't say you said it was, I was stating my position - my comment about deaf ears was directed at the thread in general.

 

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
44 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

How about, let the DNF mean what the cacher wants it to (within reason to be understandable and relevant to the community)

The fact that you had to included "within reason" tells me you get it.   I happen to think that the way some use DNFs are unreasonable. 

 

I know. But you're effectively demanding everyone be reasonable by your definition, instead of accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference. You can explain why you think posting certain logs is better in certain cases because that makes sense to you, but you keep labeling people as unreasonable or just wrong when to them their actions are perfectly reasonable. That's why this argument keeps going around in circles. Accept that you have a way that you prefer, and other people have a way they prefer - and the CHS has to deal with BOTH of those, because they are all allowable.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

We aren't talking about not searching. We're talking about the other end, searching and seeing the cache, and then filing a DNF.

 

But, yes, that's what some do. I don't, but I have zero problem with it if some want to log a non-search as a DNF because I'm going to read that they didn't get out of their car.

 

And, actually, there are times I'd log a DNF without getting out of my car in special cases, like if the park was unexpectedly closed.

Then we're on the same page except for the effect that DNF, regardless of what's written in the log, has on the CHS.  

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you read my comment, I'm effectively taking a centrist stance.  I'm disagreeing with you on one thing, while in agreement on another. The other end of the spectrum is making CHS to be the bad guy causing people to change their logging habits to appease it. I didn't say you said it was, I was stating my position - my comment about deaf ears was directed at the thread in general.

 

 

I know. But you're effectively demanding everyone be reasonable by your definition, instead of accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference. You can explain why you think posting certain logs is better in certain cases because that makes sense to you, but you keep labeling people as unreasonable or just wrong when to them their actions are perfectly reasonable. That's why this argument keeps going around in circles. Accept that you have a way that you prefer, and other people have a way they prefer - and the CHS has to deal with BOTH of those, because they are all allowable.

I'm defiantly not demanding anything  and if I am it's not been very effective. 

 

Let me clear this up once and for all.   I'm not advocating we change the way we use DNFs BECAUSE of the CHS.  I'm suggesting we consider changing it because I believe it's a better use of the log.   GS isn't asking anyone to change.  I am.   

 

The way some prefer to use DNFs can unnecessarily effect the CHS and cache owners in a negative way.   The caching from your car is one example.  

 

I prefer to think about the effects of my log before I post it to make sure it's sending the intended information.    I think the log itself should convey some basic information and the words that accompany the log should expand on that.   In other words I don't think you should have to read the log to understand what transpired in the posting of that DNF.        

Link to comment
On 11/12/2018 at 3:07 PM, J Grouchy said:

 

So if you spot your keys down a sewer grating but can't reach them, you tell folks you didn't find them...or do you note that you found them but were unable to reach them? 

 

That's irrelevant.   There isn't a log type for losing or finding car keys.  In the context of losing/locating/finding a set of car keys,   "finding" may mean something different than "finding" a container in the context of geocaching.  They're different contexts, thus the meaning of the words may be different.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only reason I would change that DNF to a NOTE after the fact has more to do with personal pride.    If I post a DNF you can be sure I gave it the ole college try and the subsequent find just means I was not on my game that day.    No shame in that.    

 

If you leave your DNF in place after you've gone back and subsequently found the cache, isn't your DNF still having a negative impact on the cache's CHS? We know from examples quoted recently in the forums that a find doesn't wipe away the negative score of preceding DNFs - it appears the only thing that'll do that is an OM, which gets back to the subject of this thread if people are logging what would otherwise be superfluous OMs just to appease the CHS.

 

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If I have to explain why you shouldn't use a dnf to log a cache when you never even got out of your car to look for it,  it's hopeless.    Yet that's what some still do.  

 

Can you provide some examples of people logging DNFs when they haven't even gotten out of their car? That's certainly not the scenario I'm talking about - in the example I gave of the cache under a ledge, I'd got out of the car, hiked for two hours, spent the best part of another hour searching around GZ and finally spotted the cache hiding in a place I couldn't reach without ropes or a ladder, neither of which I had with me that day. I was trying to find the cache, trying very hard if the amount of physical effort I'd put in that day is anything to go by, but didn't succeed in completing the find, i.e. put my signature in the logbook. I still don't see why the fact that I saw where the cache was hidden stops it from being a DNF - the Help Centre definition of a DNF certainly doesn't say that, if you take the meaning of the word "find" to be the same as in logging a find. It says a DNF is an important log because it can inform other searchers that the cache is extra difficult to find, and that's exactly what I was saying with my DNF. A DNF doesn't have to mean a cache needs maintenance - that's what an NM log is for.

 

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What I find interesting here is I honestly believe that most players use DNFs in exactly the same way I do. 

 

All those DNF logs I quoted earlier in this thread, the ones you said shouldn't have been DNFs, were from real people, most of whom are experienced cachers with many years in the game, logging real DNFs on real caches, and I have plenty more examples of DNFs on my hides that don't meet your definition of that log type. Most of the cachers I've experienced log a DNF when they've tried to find the cache but didn't succeed. As simple as that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Let me clear this up once and for all.   I'm not advocating we change the way we use DNFs BECAUSE of the CHS.  I'm suggesting we consider changing it because I believe it's a better use of the log.   GS isn't asking anyone to change.  I am.

Then... No. Because many disagree that it's a "better use of the log".  Now what are ya gonna do?

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The way some prefer to use DNFs can unnecessarily effect the CHS and cache owners in a negative way.

Why is it negative?  If you think it's negative, and the community thinks it negative, then Groundspeak should have the CHS treat it as negative. Or vice versa. If there's an inconsistency between what the community considers reasonable and what the algorithm considers reasonable, then Groundspeak needs to judge whether the CHS should adjust, or whether the community should adjust. Not you. Log the way you want to log. Let others log the way they want to log.  Let Groundspeak deal with whether it think any particular DNF should have a lowering impression on a listing's score when its context is taken into consideration.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I prefer to think about the effects of my log before I post it to make sure it's sending the intended information. 

Good. Everyone should.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think the log itself should convey some basic information and the words that accompany the log should expand on that.   In other words I don't think you should have to read the log to understand what transpired in the posting of that DNF.

Okay. We do, because the DNF type is not specific enough. The CHS can't assume a specific. That's why it considers many factors in its statistics and scoring algorithm because it can't assume a DNF means anything in particular in and of its own existence.  The DNF does not have a specific meaning. That is just the way it is. Accept it. You can imbue it with a specific meaning in your own case, but you can't in everyone else's. You'll have to read their logs in order to know what they meant by their DNF. And they aren't necessarily wrong for posting it when you'd otherwise have posted a note.

 

 

... I don't even know how to segue this back to the post topic.

Link to comment

Getting back onto the original subject of this thread, one of my caches (GC6PE5B) has a partially submerged waypoint which I like to visit every few months to clean off the buildup of algae it gets - not enough to render it dysfunctional but I like to keep it reasonably nice. Normally I don't log an OM with such a visit unless there was something to report, but in light of the muggling earlier in the year, the lack of any seekers since then and the recent drought-breaking rains, I thought it was probably a good idea to do so with my visit on Monday. The thing is, looking now at the cache page, it seems a bit top-heavy with my logs which are the most recent four of them - a TD for the muggling, a WN reporting on repair progress, an EN when I replaced the waypoint and now Monday's OM. My next visit will likely be at the end of January after the summer school holidays and, assuming no intervening finds (pretty much all the active locals have done it now), if I log an OM then, any PQs of that cache will only contain my logs, and further logs just saying I wiped a bit of algae from the waypoint probably wouldn't be helpful to anyone. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Getting back onto the original subject of this thread, one of my caches (GC6PE5B) has a partially submerged waypoint which I like to visit every few months to clean off the buildup of algae it gets - not enough to render it dysfunctional but I like to keep it reasonably nice. Normally I don't log an OM with such a visit unless there was something to report, but in light of the muggling earlier in the year, the lack of any seekers since then and the recent drought-breaking rains, I thought it was probably a good idea to do so with my visit on Monday. The thing is, looking now at the cache page, it seems a bit top-heavy with my logs which are the most recent four of them - a TD for the muggling, a WN reporting on repair progress, an EN when I replaced the waypoint and now Monday's OM. My next visit will likely be at the end of January after the summer school holidays and, assuming no intervening finds (pretty much all the active locals have done it now), if I log an OM then, any PQs of that cache will only contain my logs, and further logs just saying I wiped a bit of algae from the waypoint probably wouldn't be helpful to anyone. Any thoughts?

Well, if you're worried about it, and you think the algae report isn't valuable anymore, then just delete it.

 

Personally, with what sounds like a very special cache that, I'm guessing, takes some planning to track down, I seriously doubt anyone's going to go out into the field and only then start reading the logs for clues. Besides, aren't the old find logs going to be pretty much as out-of-date as our algae report?

 

Furthermore, with such a rarely visited cache, if you think something in an old find log is going to be important to someone looking for the cache, then you should be even more worried that whatever that information is isn't in the cache description where it can be found even when that special find log is timed out by newer find logs that don't mention whatever critical piece of information that one find log contains.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Personally, with what sounds like a very special cache that, I'm guessing, takes some planning to track down, I seriously doubt anyone's going to go out into the field and only then start reading the logs for clues. Besides, aren't the old find logs going to be pretty much as out-of-date as our algae report?

 

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but quite frequently when I'm out caching in bushland like this, I'll go looking back through previous logs on the Garmin for some little titbit that might help in my search, either nudging me in the right direction or ruling out some possibilities. It's all part of the adventure, a bit of detective work to prise out some useful morsel or two in my battle of wits with the CO. Things like people mentioning how long they searched for, scratches from prickly vegetation (or the absence of such mentions if I'm pondering a thorny thicket blocking my way) or any manner of almost inconsequential remarks that can rule something in or out in the field. And no, landforms don't change very quickly so anything relating to the lay of the land is unlikely to be out of date in even the oldest of logs.

 

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Furthermore, with such a rarely visited cache, if you think something in an old find log is going to be important to someone looking for the cache, then you should be even more worried that whatever that information is isn't in the cache description where it can be found even when that special find log is timed out by newer find logs that don't mention whatever critical piece of information that one find log contains.

 

The older logs contain heaps of information that couldn't all be incorporated into the cache description and I certainly wouldn't claim to know which bits of older logs might prove useful to later finders. This is no P&G; there's no road or formed path to GZ. I've provided a couple of reference points along the route I use to get there from the parking waypoint but others have chosen different ways in, or found interesting things along the way that go beyond what could go into the cache's description. The last thing I want to do is spoil that experience by having a hand-holding description along every step of the way. The whole reserve is an interesting area to explore, including the waterhole which I'm still not sure is entirely natural or partly man-made, wind-sculptured rock formations, numerous caves and, to someone more botanically-minded than me, perhaps interesting flora. Some of the information in those logs only makes sense when you're actually in the area, so reading them beforehand mightn't be as much help as referring back to them in the field.

 

On the other hand, OM logs just saying that the waypoint was cleaned don't really offer any help to someone in the field; the waypoint would be just as usable even if I never cleaned it. I'm still not convinced I did the right thing by logging that OM on Monday - it was really just the lack of any activity since the April muggling and the recent heavy rains that swayed me into doing so. Yes, it says the cache was there on Monday but that doesn't give any guarantee that it's going to be there tomorrow, next week, next month or any time in the future until the next log. On an infrequently found cache, that expanse of time since the last log can even add another element of enticing unknown to the adventure, something I'm again reluctant to spoil with a run of mundane OMs.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
Link to comment

For the OP, yes you can have too many.   There is a cache of mine I walk by almost every day.   I take a peek at it as I pass.   If I was to log an OM (or even a note) every day, it would clutter the cache page, make it hard for others to see "real" logs, and add no value.

But if, as the OP suggested, I was doing a pre-winter check, then an OM log stating this would be useful.

 

As for this long diversion about DNFs.... There have been many debates about when to log a DNF or not, and there is never agreement.   These debates happened before the CHS.   My view:  DNFs often will have impact on others, and be interpreted by cachers (and now, also an input to the CHS).   I see no need to try and define when to DNF in a specific way.    However, I will continue to consider how DNFs are seen/used when I log.

 

At one end of the DNF debate, there are those who take the approach that once they "start", there can only be 2 results - Found it, or DNF.    Let's assume I'm one of them (I'm not).   I go out with 4 friends.  We park our vehicle, press go/start on our device, and get out of the car to start a 5 mile walk to a cache.   But before we get out of the parking lot, it starts to rain.  Hard.  We decide to abort.   We get in the car and go to the pub.

 

We all log a DNF - we started to Geocache, we took a few steps.   We didn't find it, so it has to be DNF.   Perfectly logical.     The cache now has 5 DNFs in a row.

Possible impacts of our decision:

1.  It may put off some others looking for it.  Especially those who filter their caches based on number of DNFs, and don't read the details of the logs.

2.  It MAY trigger a CHS email.

 

Knowing this, I think it reasonable to consider these possible impacts, and perhaps log a note (or nothing) instead.   Or perhaps, if we insist on a DNF, just one of us logs it.    But I understand that some don't agree.   Some will feel that 5 DNFs is still the right log, and they aren't going to change their own process because of how others (or a tool) may react.

 

Personally, I consider the impacts; including if new tools like the CHS come along.    I wish others would consider the impacts too, but I can't do anything about that.     If someone considers the impacts and makes a different decision than I would, that's fine.   It is the people who won't even consider any impacts which I find harder to understand, but I accept that they can do as they like.   

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

At one end of the DNF debate, there are those who take the approach that once they "start", there can only be 2 results - Found it, or DNF.    Let's assume I'm one of them (I'm not).   I go out with 4 friends.  We park our vehicle, press go/start on our device, and get out of the car to start a 5 mile walk to a cache.   But before we get out of the parking lot, it starts to rain.  Hard.  We decide to abort.   We get in the car and go to the pub.

 

We all log a DNF - we started to Geocache, we took a few steps.   We didn't find it, so it has to be DNF.   Perfectly logical.     The cache now has 5 DNFs in a row.

Possible impacts of our decision:

1.  It may put off some others looking for it.  Especially those who filter their caches based on number of DNFs, and don't read the details of the logs.

2.  It MAY trigger a CHS email.

 

Knowing this, I think it reasonable to consider these possible impacts, and perhaps log a note (or nothing) instead.   Or perhaps, if we insist on a DNF, just one of us logs it.    But I understand that some don't agree.   Some will feel that 5 DNFs is still the right log, and they aren't going to change their own process because of how others (or a tool) may react.

 

For the record, I wouldn't log a DNF in a situation like that, although I've had some rainfall-induced DNFs on my hides. My rule of thumb is that it's a DNF if some aspect of the cache has defeated me. That might be the camo, the placement (it's somewhere I can't reach or in a spot teaming with muggles) or the terrain the CO has challenged me to overcome along the way. If I'm waylaid on the way to GZ because of something completely unrelated to the cache (a phone call from work, for example), or I've decided I've had enough for one day and will come back to complete the journey another time (particularly for a multi), then it's either a note or nothing. But if I've tried to do everything I can to find the cache (as in sign the logbook) and failed, it's a DNF. My DNFs just say that I tried but failed; they don't infer anything about the health of the cache and shouldn't be interpreted that way.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference.

I can't accept that.   Those that are set in their ways may never change but those who are new to the activity may see some sense in what I'm saying and be willing to make that change or at least think about what logs they post before they post them.      

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My DNFs just say that I tried but failed; they don't infer anything about the health of the cache and shouldn't be interpreted that way.

 

My point is that, like it or not, my DNFs will, in some cases, be interpreted as a "possible issue with the cache" - whether I like it or not.  And it's always been like that.   Some cachers will be put off going for a cache where the last log is a DNF.   Others will filter ones where the last "n" logs are DNFs.   

And then there is the CHS tool.

 

I don't particularly like the CHS tool, so I can see the logic in "I'm not even going to consider what that tool might do".     But it is not just the tool, it is other cachers who may reach conclusions based on your DNF.

 

If one considers this, and decides DNF is still best, then fine.   One could still consider it in the text.   I write a long DNF log about my adventure, which ends in my seeing the cache in the tree but it is too difficult for me to reach.    Lots will see the DNF but not read my long log.    If I'm worried about the CHS, I might consider a note instead.   But even I don't consider the CHS and stick with DNF, I might want to write my log to clearly start with "NO ISSUES WITH THE CACHE,  I COULD SEE IT".   That is still an example of considering the reality about how DNFs may be interpreted.

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If you leave your DNF in place after you've gone back and subsequently found the cache, isn't your DNF still having a negative impact on the cache's CHS?

That DNF represents my experience.  I reached GZ and searched.  I wouldn't change that log later if I did return and FOUND it.   If a cache had 5 DNFs on it and I actually searched and couldn't find it I'd post a DNF even though I know that my DNF could be the one that triggers the e-mail or reviewer action.   My responsibility to everyone involved  is to post an accurate log that describes my experience and let the reviewers decide if any action is necessary.   

 

My argument is the context in which some choose to use DNFs.    The CHS aside it makes no sense to me to post a DNF on a cache you never actually searched for.    To me a DNF indicates a search was conducted without success.   That DNF could mean many things and as much as some don't want to admit it, one of them is the cache is actually missing.  I have no idea what percentage of DNFs are posted on missing caches.  I do know that the people with that information decided to include that possibility into the CHS.

 

All that being said I feel it's my responsibility to have made an honest effort to have searched before I post one.   To me that's reaching GZ and trying to find it.        

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

If one considers this, and decides DNF is still best, then fine.   One could still consider it in the text.

To me these are the two options.   Posting a DNF without an actual search tells me nothing.  In fact, as you noted above, that DNF not only negatively effects the CHS but it can negatively effect the cache owner as well,  prompting them to unnecessarily check up on their cache.   It could also  cause other potential cachers to pass it by.   In many of these cases a NOTE would do none of that.   If you wanted to tell the world you reached the parking lot and decided to go for ice cream instead of hunting down the cache,  why not say all that in a NOTE?   With all the possible negative ramifications,  why use a DNF in that situation when you have another, in my opinion, better option?  

Link to comment
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If you leave your DNF in place after you've gone back and subsequently found the cache, isn't your DNF still having a negative impact on the cache's CHS?

 

I don't think so. I believe Keystone said a find after a DNF cancels out previous DNFs. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

To me these are the two options.   Posting a DNF without an actual search tells me nothing.  In fact, as you noted above, that DNF not only negatively effects the CHS but it can negatively effect the cache owner as well,  prompting them to unnecessarily check up on their cache.   It could also  cause other potential cachers to pass it by.   In many of these cases a NOTE would do none of that.   If you wanted to tell the world you reached the parking lot and decided to go for ice cream instead of hunting down the cache,  why not say all that in a NOTE?   With all the possible negative ramifications,  why use a DNF in that situation when you have another, in my opinion, better option?  

 

I agree with you; in the ice cream case I see no benefit of a DNF.     

 

However, I don't think the answer to this debate is to try and define DNF precisely (e.g. to only apply when you reach GZ and give a good search).    Why?  Because there are so many factors and different situations.    I would rather try and get cachers to at least consider how others interpret a DNF, and then make their own judgements.  

 

I hate giving examples, as each example can spawn a debate about that example.. but I'll do it anyway.   Here is an example which doesn't meet the "reach GZ and give a good search" criteria, but that I would log a DNF, even considering how it may be interpreted.     I'm walking down a footpath to find a cache on a small island.     There is a footbridge on the path to give access to the island.   I get to the island, and the bridge is closed, with a sign saying it is unsafe and under repair, do not use.     I would log a DNF,  as there is an issue here that I want others to notice, and the DNF is more likely to be noticed.     The CO may want to disable the cache until the bridge is repaired.   Other cachers may want to wait until the bridge is repaired.    Some may bring a boat, others may ignore the sign and cross anyway.    Still, I think DNF is the best log here.

 

So rather than try to define it, my plea to others is to at least consider how DNFs are interpreted.      

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

 

11 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

However, I don't think the answer to this debate is to try and define DNF precisely (e.g. to only apply when you reach GZ and give a good search).   

My question is why not?   The definition of a FIND is pretty cut and dry although some have found ways to circumvent that as well. 

Why wouldn't we want to define DNFs?   Wouldn't that make the use of them easier and the significance of them clearer?

16 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

there are so many factors and different situations

 What other factors can't be communicated through a NOTE or NM?   I'm asking for your insite here because I really can't think of one.

17 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

would rather try and get cachers to at least consider how others interpret a DNF, and then make their own judgements.  

It's this interpretation of the log that's the issue.   To me it's implied that a DNF means an unsuccessful  search at GZ but obviously others don't see it that way. 

 

21 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 I'm walking down a footpath to find a cache on a small island.     There is a footbridge on the path to give access to the island.   I get to the island, and the bridge is closed, with a sign saying it is unsafe and under repair, do not use.     I would log a DNF,  as there is an issue here that I want others to notice, and the DNF is more likely to be noticed.

I get this one but I still think a NOTE would serve the same purpose.   I agree a DNF would get more attention but I've been lead to believe that everyone reads information contained in the logs so if that's true a NOTE should suffice.   Maybe even a NM could be used if attention is what your after.    Maybe a new "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be the perfect solution to this problem.    I personally wouldn't post a DNF in this situation because I wasn't able to search GZ and there are other log options available that would work.   

 

25 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

So rather than try to define it, my plea to others is to at least consider how DNFs are interpreted.      

Regardless of what side of the fence your on this is always good advice,  with any log. 

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

My question is why not?   The definition of a FIND is pretty cut and dry although some have found ways to circumvent that as well. 

Why wouldn't we want to define DNFs?   Wouldn't that make the use of them easier and the significance of them clearer?

 What other factors can't be communicated through a NOTE or NM?   I'm asking for your insite here because I really can't think of one.

It's this interpretation of the log that's the issue.   To me it's implied that a DNF means an unsuccessful  search at GZ but obviously others don't see it that way. 

 

I get this one but I still think a NOTE would serve the same purpose.   I agree a DNF would get more attention but I've been lead to believe that everyone reads information contained in the logs so if that's true a NOTE should suffice.   Maybe even a NM could be used if attention is what your after.    Maybe a new "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be the perfect solution to this problem.    I personally wouldn't post a DNF in this situation because I wasn't able to search GZ and there are other log options available that would work.   

 

Regardless of what side of the fence your on this is always good advice,  with any log. 

 

 

Of course a NOTE can always be used for anything; you don't need a DNF log at all.    

If Groundspeak were to define DNF to specifically mean  "unsuccessful  search at GZ", then I would log a NOTE for my island/bridge example.      And add some bold or caps text with a clear WARNING.    As things stand, I would log DNF; but have no issue if others logged a NOTE instead.

 

I personally don't want to try to define it - at least not here - as there will just be more pages of debate.     If Groundspeak were to refine the definition, I'd be happy with that.  

 

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

Here is an example which doesn't meet the "reach GZ and give a good search" criteria, but that I would log a DNF, even considering how it may be interpreted.     I'm walking down a footpath to find a cache on a small island.     There is a footbridge on the path to give access to the island.   I get to the island, and the bridge is closed, with a sign saying it is unsafe and under repair, do not use.     I would log a DNF,  as there is an issue here that I want others to notice, and the DNF is more likely to be noticed.     The CO may want to disable the cache until the bridge is repaired.   Other cachers may want to wait until the bridge is repaired.    Some may bring a boat, others may ignore the sign and cross anyway.    Still, I think DNF is the best log here.

 

So rather than try to define it, my plea to others is to at least consider how DNFs are interpreted.      

 

+1

 

I go for a cache after reading all the available info. I almost never see the elusive “Note” in any case, but in the example, “Note, Bridge is out” doesn't tell me that there's a problem accessing the cache any more than “Found It, Bridge is out” (did they swim?).

 

Of the options, “DNF, bridge is out”, that type tells me that I also won't find it, because the bridge is out. Excessive Owner Maintenance (see? I'm on topic and everything!) would bring the CO to the cache frequently enough that the cache would be disabled once the bridge is out, with info about when the bridge may be back in service. And a suggestion of an alternate route if available. I would be armed with advance knowledge, and to better make cache hunt decisions. I wouldn't make a DNF or Note, because I would arrive when the bridge is not out.

 

The fact that the CO did nothing before now (“excessive owner maintenance”, my foot), and takes no action after my DNF, so now there's a CHS warning... too bad, so sad. That cache is suitable to become unlisted by the site. Even perfectly fine in its spot. If CHS was supposed to prevent me from catching grief over the eventual archive, it fails that test. Other than that, it's working as advertised.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...