A string of DNFs....

[+lagjeg]

There are a lot of caches in my area that have a lot of DNFs. 7 out of 10 in one small area have DNFs since 2017, yet they are still active. How can I go about bringing attention to these to a volunteer in my area, if there is still a volunteer? I would love to put some caches out there for people to find instead of having lots of DNFs in my area. Thanks! 

[+niraD]

Some of my Favorites are D4 "hidden in plain sight" caches that tend to accumulate a lot of DNFs even when there's nothing wrong. But if you think there is a real issue, then see the Help Center article When a cache needs maintenance.

Edited July 10, 2019 by niraD

[+Max and 99]

Just checked on one that has 2 DNFs and not found since 2016. The CO appears to be active.

Another with no recent DNF but an ignored NM for almost two years.

Another has one DNF, an active CO, and hasn't been found since 2015.

Another has 3 DNFs, hasn't been found since 2015, when the cache was reported to be nothing but a spitball. CO's last find was in 2009!

 

There's a mixture in your area! Some action may be needed.

[+cerberus1]

41 minutes ago, lagjeg said:

There are a lot of caches in my area that have a lot of DNFs. 7 out of 10 in one small area have DNFs since 2017, yet they are still active. How can I go about bringing attention to these to a volunteer in my area, if there is still a volunteer? I would love to put some caches out there for people to find instead of having lots of DNFs in my area. Thanks! 

 

You didn't say what the D/T ratings are on them.   That makes a big difference.     "Did anyone log a Needs Maintenance?"  is another.

If a "lot" of DNFs on a 1.5/1.5, then maybe a look is needed, but we've seen  just 2/1.5s go a while before the next person finds it.  

 - "Rehidden" by the last finder issues sometimes too.

If no Needs Maintenance  logs have been done, I'd do that first,  after going myself (as per guidelines...) to be sure.

It'd be nice if the CO  was at least given the opportunity to fix the problem (if there is one...), before someone runs to tell on him...

[+barefootjeff]

One of my caches, a D1.5, had a DNF a couple of days ago (the last find was back in January). The log said their approach to GZ had been blocked by a large snake sunning itself in the middle of the track so they abandoned their search. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do as a CO to remedy that. Even if I could find the snake, I doubt my parseltongue skills are good enough to convince it to find somewhere else to sun itself.

[+cerberus1]

14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do as a CO to remedy that.

Yep. 

We see DNFs because someone had to go to the bathroom (and couldn't go outside...), because they saw a bee, because there's poison ivy, and on n on...

Either never got to GZ (which isn't a DNF...),  or didn't look for who knows what reason. 

What part of "If you didn't look,  it's  not a DNF" don't they understand ? 

[+The Jester]

47 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

What part of "If you didn't look,  it's  not a DNF" don't they understand ? 

Where's that in the guidelines?  If the hunt does not end with a Find, it's a DNF.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, lagjeg said:

There are a lot of caches in my area that have a lot of DNFs. 7 out of 10 in one small area have DNFs since 2017, yet they are still active. How can I go about bringing attention to these to a volunteer in my area, if there is still a volunteer? I would love to put some caches out there for people to find instead of having lots of DNFs in my area. Thanks! 

If you think the cache is missing, you post an needs maintenance to alert the CO that you're concerned. If there's an NM already posted and the CO did nothing about it, you post an Needs Archived log to explain your concerns to the reviewer.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 hours ago, The Jester said:

Where's that in the guidelines?  If the hunt does not end with a Find, it's a DNF.

 

When doesn't the hunt start?  That's not defined in the guidelines either.  Some consider the hunt started once they've reached GZ, while others might consider it started once they've hit "Go To" (or whatever button they touch/push) on their GPS device.  That could be while they're driving to the location, half way down a trail, or once they're within 200 feet.   Is navigating to ground zero part of the hunt?  

[+baer2006]

10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Is navigating to ground zero part of the hunt?  

In general, I'd say that it's not. Therefore, if I don't even reach GZ, I either post nothing at all or (if the reason for my failure might be of interest to the CO or other cachers) a note.

 

However, I've been to a few caches where the difficulty to find a way and/or actually make it to GZ was explicitly pointed out in the listing. In these cases, I might have logged DNF if I had failed to reach GZ.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Is navigating to ground zero part of the hunt?  

 

On higher terrain caches in particular I think it is, as overcoming the terrain is just as much a part of the challenge the CO has set as the container's camo. I've logged a fair few DNFs when I've been defeated by the terrain, usually the last couple of metres when I realise I can't quite get to it, and on some I've carted a telescopic ladder back out there to eventually redeem it and replace that blue frown with a yellow smilie.

[+lagjeg]

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you think the cache is missing, you post an needs maintenance to alert the CO that you're concerned. If there's an NM already posted and the CO did nothing about it, you post an Needs Archived log to explain your concerns to the reviewer.

 

Thank you! I didn't know I could do a 'needs archived'. Obviously, this isn't something that all of them would require. Just a couple in the area. 

 

I recently visited family in Texas and did a lot of caching down there. It was really nice to see a bunch of caches well taken care of.

[+Wet_Ground]

6 hours ago, lagjeg said:

 

Thank you! I didn't know I could do a 'needs archived'. Obviously, this isn't something that all of them would require. Just a couple in the area. 

 

I recently visited family in Texas and did a lot of caching down there. It was really nice to see a bunch of caches well taken care of.

I would go out there look for them IF you don't find it then I would log as "could be missing" then give the CO a month to post a note or give some indication that they'll check on it then if they don't THEN you post a "needs archiving" log.

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Wet_Ground
spelling

[+Mudfrog]

9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Yep. 

We see DNFs because someone had to go to the bathroom (and couldn't go outside...), because they saw a bee, because there's poison ivy, and on n on...

Either never got to GZ (which isn't a DNF...),  or didn't look for who knows what reason. 

What part of "If you didn't look,  it's  not a DNF" don't they understand ? 

 

8 hours ago, The Jester said:

Where's that in the guidelines?  If the hunt does not end with a Find, it's a DNF.

 

For me, the hunt begins when I press "go to" with the intent of finding a cache. A DNF gets posted when, for whatever reason,  I don't come up with that cache. I do make sure to post in my DNF,  the reason I didn't find it. That way, when someone reads my DNF log stating that my car broke down before I got to ground zero, they won't panic and think there's something wrong. Doing this doesn't hurt a thing and helps me keep up with DNFed caches I might want to go back and try for again someday.

 

OP, I'm sure you have but, make sure to read the logs to see why they were posted as DNFs before taking any action. Also, I'm sure that you have actually looked for these caches but if not, then you probably shouldn't worry about them at this point. Yes, a string of DNFs does give an indication there's something wrong but unless you've gone out and actually looked for the cache, you really don't know anything for sure. Personally, we've found many caches with DNFs on them, many of them low difficulty rated caches.

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, The Jester said:

Where's that in the guidelines?  If the hunt does not end with a Find, it's a DNF.

 

Who said anything about guidelines ?

If you never got to GZ to start looking,  you can't really say you "didn't find it".    You never looked...    

I leave a write note when I didn't get an opportunity (for any reason...)  to look at GZ.   In the write note I explain why I didn't get to GZ to search.

There's a few threads on COs receiving CHS notices on caches because people who aren't even looking are leaving DNFs, on caches that might be there.

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

There's a few threads on COs receiving CHS notices on caches because people who aren't even looking are leaving DNFs, on caches that might be there.

My attitude towards DNFs is similar to yours; I won't log a DNF if I did not reach GZ and search for the cache. But others log DNFs differently. Some are more strict, not logging DNFs when I would. Some are less strict, logging DNFs when I wouldn't. It has always been this way since I started, more than 13 years ago.

 

If this causes problems with the CHS, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

If this causes problems with the CHS, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

If this causes problems with the CHS, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

[+The Jester]

58 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Who said anything about guidelines ?

If you never got to GZ to start looking,  you can't really say you "didn't find it".    You never looked...    

I leave a write note when I didn't get an opportunity (for any reason...)  to look at GZ.   In the write note I explain why I didn't get to GZ to search.

There's a few threads on COs receiving CHS notices on caches because people who aren't even looking are leaving DNFs, on caches that might be there.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  For me when the hunt starts it either ends in a Find or Did Not Find.  Write Note I use for things that are not related directly to the hunt (TB drops, questions to CO, etc.).

[+cerberus1]

In '13,  a Blog on why to log a DNF, the site says:

"You’ve looked. You really have. The geocache is not a container magnetized under the park bench. It’s not that funny looking rock, and of course it’s not under the lamp post cover. You’ve checked the previous logs and the hint. The geocache could be there, but you can’t seem to find it. You give up (for now). Geocaching doesn’t stop there though. Here’s what you do. You log a DNF on the geocache page. It’s “Did not find” and it means, “I care.”

When you log a DNF, you’re telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be located at the posted coordinates."

 

In a  '14  Blog: " If you’re just joining the geocaching adventure, DNF stands for Did Not Find. It’s a log type when you’re searching for a geocache, and guess what, didn’t find it."

 

The basics in Geocaching 101 says: "If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" log so that the cache owner is notified."

 

None say that you should log a DNF  while navigating to GZ.  

 - It's done when looking and searching, while visiting the cache location and didn't find it.    That is pretty basic.  

[+The A-Team]

49 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

None say that you should log a DNF  while navigating to GZ.

 

None say that you shouldn't, though.

 

As we've learned from countless past discussions of "when do you log a DNF", there's a wide spectrum of personal opinions on what constitutes a DNF. Personally, it doesn't matter to me how other people choose to log their DNFs. Like niraD said, the CHS shouldn't define how DNFs are used, it should be the other way around.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, Wet_Ground said:

I would go out there look for them IF you don't find it then I would log as "could be missing" then give the CO a month to post a note or give some indication that they'll check on it then if they don't THEN you post a "needs archiving" log.

If the DNFs paint as clear a picture as the OP suggests, I'd post an NM or an NA (if an NM had already been posted) without thinking twice about visiting GZ. In fact, from what the OP describes, the problem might very well be that the caches are so obviously missing that no one's bothering to go look for them while at the same time the community is convinced that you can't post an NM or NA without going to GZ. Consequently, no NAs to get rid of the obviously missing and never to be replaced caches that no one will ever look for again.

[+NanCycle]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One of my caches, a D1.5, had a DNF a couple of days ago (the last find was back in January). The log said their approach to GZ had been blocked by a large snake sunning itself in the middle of the track so they abandoned their search. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do as a CO to remedy that. Even if I could find the snake, I doubt my parseltongue skills are good enough to convince it to find somewhere else to sun itself.

 

One of mine, rated D=1, last found in February, got 2 DNFs a couple days ago from 2 people caching together who didn't want to look in the tall weeds because they were afraid there might be snakes in there.  Despite the 2 DNFs I have no reason to believe that the cache might be missing.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, The Jester said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  For me when the hunt starts it either ends in a Find or Did Not Find.  Write Note I use for things that are not related directly to the hunt (TB drops, questions to CO, etc.).

 

That's pretty much how I see it, although if my hunt is interrupted by something unrelated to the cache (like a phone call wanting me to be somewhere else) I probably just wouldn't log anything or write a note if my journey to date was noteworthy enough. Likewise on an involved cache that's going to take me more than one day to complete, I might log a note with a progress report, especially if I know the CO or if FTF is still up for grabs; that wouldn't be a DNF because my hunt is still on-going. But if I'm defeated by some aspect of the cache, be it its difficulty or terrain, that's a DNF.

 

Getting back to the original topic of strings of DNFs, sometimes caches can just be tricky to find and DNFs often breed DNFs because people will search more thoroughly if the last log was a find than if it was a DNF. GC13C3B is a good example of this. It often gets long strings of DNFs spanning several years but it's never gone missing, it's just a tricky one to spot because there are so many much more obvious hiding places in the vicinity and you have to look at just the right angle to spot its camo.

[+Hynz]

13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

None say that you should log a DNF  while navigating to GZ.  

While I have no big problem if the detailed(!) log why someone could not sign the logbook  is classified as "DNF" or as a "Note", I can't help but thinking that those (apparently including GS) insisting that you have to be at GZ to log a DNF only have easy reachable Traditional caches in mind.

 

For those caches - which also form the majority of published caches - I can agree to this logic. But especially for Multis and in part for Traditionals where reaching GZ takes time and effort (and those caches are to me the heart and bone of Geocaching) this logic fails and not finding a stage of a Multi *is definitely* a DNF of the cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

I log a DNF when I have searched and not found it. I log note when for some reason, such as a muggle sitting at GZ, I couldn't search. To me it seems silly to think that the hunt starts when you press the GPS to go to it, which could be a 100kms away. One km into the journey and the bridge is closed, end of search. I would not log a DNF for that. I haven't got there; I haven't searched.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, Hynz said:

For those caches - which also form the majority of published caches - I can agree to this logic. But especially for Multis and in part for Traditionals where reaching GZ takes time and effort (and those caches are to me the heart and bone of Geocaching) this logic fails and not finding a stage of a Multi *is definitely* a DNF of the cache.

Yeah, not finding a stage of a multi is definitely a DNF.

 

On the other hand, for multis and other caches that take me multiple trips, as long as I've been able to do what I planned to do that trip, I've logged a Note with an update on my progress. A DNF isn't appropriate because I did what I planned to do, and a Find isn't appropriate until I finish the whole thing.

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, Hynz said:

For those caches - which also form the majority of published caches - I can agree to this logic. But especially for Multis and in part for Traditionals where reaching GZ takes time and effort (and those caches are to me the heart and bone of Geocaching) this logic fails and not finding a stage of a Multi *is definitely* a DNF of the cache.

Sure, I bet most would agree if you were already at stage 1 of a multi,  you were at GZ .  "Navigating to the cache" towards the next stage not the same...

 

But I disagree on "time and effort" making a difference. 

"Time and effort" should already be calculated in with D/T.  For many, the reason they're heading to that cache...

If I got my shot bag stuck on a limb preparing for a climb,  and have to head home for another (happened, a spare's in the truck now),  it's a write note.

I "found" the cache, I just can't access it to sign the log yet.

 

[+narcissa]

I don't place much value on other people's DNF logs unless they are geocachers I trust to be thorough. In most instances, I will look for myself.

 

When I have a DNF, I typically keep an eye on the cache for a while and if I might log a "Needs Maintenance" if it keeps getting DNFs.

[+MNTA]

I DNF'ed 4 today, 2 aborted at GZ, 2 finds . Trying to get clues.

 

First on -Bison tub in tree I spent 10 minutes will return in the fall

Found one wahoo

Second DNF supposedly found today by two others. Some days you just don't have the mojo

Third DNF D2T5 Down a tube did not have have a chance today almost didn't stop but decided to scope out

Next could not find parking so did not file dnf

Next middle of a park on a fence for the kid area ... too many muggles did not file a dnf

Found Second one wahoo

Fourth DNF hidden in the bark of a tree, these are tough for me

 

Did skip two altogether one had 4 DNFs the other 3 so did not even try. Being new to an area really allows me to be picky. Wish the reviewer would monitor those more.

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

This log that I recently received made me laugh.

 

I cant even log a dnf because i Didnt find enough info to even look! i know what to do once I find that first step though

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, narcissa said:

I don't place much value on other people's DNF logs unless they are geocachers I trust to be thorough. In most instances, I will look for myself.

I don't pay much attention to one DNF, but when there's a string of them, and they aren't all newbies, and a string of DNFs is uncharacteristic for that cache, I don't bother to look for myself unless I happen to be there for other reasons. I'll just file an NM.

 

4 hours ago, narcissa said:

When I have a DNF, I typically keep an eye on the cache for a while and if I might log a "Needs Maintenance" if it keeps getting DNFs.

When I log a DNF but don't feel an NM is warranted, I write up my report in the DNF log and then forget about it. I leave it to people looking at the cache after me to decide that it's time to file an NM. (Of course, once in a while, I'll look at a cache again after I DNFed, and I might decide to post an NM at that time, but I don't keep an eye on it for that purpose.)

[Ageleni]

On 7/9/2019 at 11:08 PM, cerberus1 said:

Yep. 

We see DNFs because someone had to go to the bathroom (and couldn't go outside...), because they saw a bee, because there's poison ivy, and on n on...

Either never got to GZ (which isn't a DNF...),  or didn't look for who knows what reason. 

What part of "If you didn't look,  it's  not a DNF" don't they understand ? 

 

I disagree with this mindset.  I log a DNF on every one I don't find, even if I probably would have found it if I had looked.  Too much mud, angry dog nearby, too hot/cold, wasp nest, covered by snow, muggles are around, construction blocking path, etc. etc. etc.  My logs are a personal record for ME.  I will almost always write why I can't find it, so that the person who comes after me will know if I genuinely looked for a 1.5 for an hour, or if I didn't go near because there was a snake in the path.  DNF doesn't automatically mean it is not there, and I wouldn't assume that my logging one would cause the CO to feel a need to check on it, especially if I clarify why I didn't find it.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Ageleni said:

I disagree with this mindset. 

 I log a DNF on every one I don't find, even if I probably would have found it if I had looked.  Too much mud, angry dog nearby, too hot/cold, wasp nest, covered by snow, muggles are around, construction blocking path, etc. etc. etc.  My logs are a personal record for ME.  I will almost always write why I can't find it, so that the person who comes after me will know if I genuinely looked for a 1.5 for an hour, or if I didn't go near because there was a snake in the path. 

 DNF doesn't automatically mean it is not there, and I wouldn't assume that my logging one would cause the CO to feel a need to check on it, especially if I clarify why I didn't find it.

 

If you read the posts above, you'd see that's not quite what the site says.    

May even be why we have a  Cache Health Score  that "reminds" COs they may have to do maintenance on their cache, simply due to DNFs.

Because you put a DNF  over "too hot or cold, or "covered by snow", now it might be just enough DNFs that a CO has to check 

For nothing...

[Ageleni]

2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Because you put a DNF  over "too hot or cold, or "covered by snow", now it might be just enough DNFs that a CO has to check 

For nothing...

 

If I write, "I have no doubt it is there, but my boots were starting to mire down in the mud, so with the help of a well-placed branch, I backed out before I got stuck.  I'll try again when it is drier." then the CO can clearly see that no maintenance will be needed.  Future cachers will also see that they have a good chance of finding it, so unless it genuinely *IS* gone, they will leave Found logs and the CO will know it is still there.

[+Max and 99]

4 hours ago, Ageleni said:

DNF doesn't automatically mean it is not there, and I wouldn't assume that my logging one would cause the CO to feel a need to check on it, especially if I clarify why I didn't find it.

You and the CO may know the DNF with an explanation may not warrant a trip to check on the cache, but the CHS algorithm does not. And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, Ageleni said:

Future cachers will also see that they have a good chance of finding it,

I wonder how many future finders will actually READ your DNF as opposed to seeing there's a DNF and deciding to pass on visiting the cache. 

[+Max and 99]

4 hours ago, Ageleni said:

My logs are a personal record for ME.

They are also public and may have consequences for future visitors and the CO. 

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I wonder how many future finders will actually READ your DNF as opposed to seeing there's a DNF and deciding to pass on visiting the cache. 

 

I really hope that doesn't happen too often. Last week I was on a short winter escape holiday in Queensland and DNFed one of the caches (a 1.5/1.5) along the coastal walk. The first time I went past it, there were a fair few muggles about so I couldn't really do much of a search, but I came past again on the way back and had the place to myself for a good half an hour. The description and hint were such that it should've been easy to spot, but no, I ended up DNFing it. Since then it's had six finds, one that was someone's first ever cache. I'm really not very good at spotting them, especially micros, and I'd hate anyone to infer from one of my DNFs that there was anything wrong with the cache.

Edited July 13, 2019 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+cerberus1]

12 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I wonder how many future finders will actually READ your DNF as opposed to seeing there's a DNF and deciding to pass on visiting the cache. 

 

Many do their search for caches with no temp disable, or DNF.   Time/gas ... don't want to waste either...

 

A thread a while ago had many say  (I'm one too...)  that a lot of 1.5 or less caches are often placed "just because they can fit one there".

 - It really didn't seem to matter that every one of their hide-a-keys placed every .1 on guardrails had a lengthy history of the town you're passing through.  

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

You and the CO may know the DNF with an explanation may not warrant a trip to check on the cache, but the CHS algorithm does not.

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

[+L0ne.R]

11 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

You and the CO may know the DNF with an explanation may not warrant a trip to check on the cache, but the CHS algorithm does not. And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

 

But not for one DNF between Found logs. I've yet to see an example of this happening, i.e. a viable cache, with no issues, one DNF gets followed up with a reviewer note. Unless there's some bigger problem like for example, the cache was removed by the finder because a landowner asked them to (but that would more likely be a Found It log).

 

[+L0ne.R]

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

 

It's not broken. A reviewer makes the final decision. 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

But not for one DNF between Found logs. I've yet to see an example of this happening, i.e. a viable cache, with no issues, one DNF gets followed up with a reviewer note.

Not a reviewer note, but an automated "friendly reminder" that gave the CO the option of fixing the cache (with no indication of anything wrong with it) or archiving the cache.

 

[Keystone]

Please remember that the CHS algorithm has been improved multiple times since the "CHS email that rocked the world" that was sent to barefootjeff in December 2016.  One example: The CHS does no longer deteriorates as quickly due to a DNF right after publication.

Also, receiving a CHS email reminder does not necessarily lead to a Reviewer taking action against someone's cache if the CO doesn't do anything.  The CHS algorithm cannot analyze the contents of a DNF log (adding in "too much poison ivy," "gave up when it started raining," "the mosquitos drove me away" plus 100 other non-actionable DNF phrases, multiplied by all the supported languages, including "mozzies" for the Australians, is a daunting task).  That's why the human eyes of a Reviewer* need to check those logs after seeing a cache on a list of unactioned Cache Health Score emails.  As CO's ourselves, Reviewers know to discount DNF logs that don't warrant CO action.

 

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

[Keystone]

On 7/9/2019 at 10:45 PM, lagjeg said:

How can I go about bringing attention to these to a volunteer in my area, if there is still a volunteer?

 

Your friendly Community Volunteer Reviewers, offline.cacher and YetAnotherReviewer, are both active geocachers in Virginia.  They monitor for "Needs Archived" logs, for caches that have been "Temporarily Disabled" for too long, and for unactioned Cache Health Score reminders.  Some Reviewers do even more, using tools such as GSAK.  Feel free to write an email to your local reviewers, asking them to do a "maintenance sweep" in your local area.

[+dprovan]

14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

18 hours ago, Ageleni said:

DNF doesn't automatically mean it is not there, and I wouldn't assume that my logging one would cause the CO to feel a need to check on it, especially if I clarify why I didn't find it.

If you read the posts above, you'd see that's not quite what the site says.     

I seriously doubt the site actually says anything different, but to the extent it does, it's obviously wrong. We all know that DNFs happen all the time when there's nothing wrong with the cache.

 

14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

May even be why we have a  Cache Health Score  that "reminds" COs they may have to do maintenance on their cache, simply due to DNFs.

Because you put a DNF  over "too hot or cold, or "covered by snow", now it might be just enough DNFs that a CO has to check 

For nothing... 

That's not her fault. It's the CHS's fault.

[+dprovan]

14 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I wonder how many future finders will actually READ your DNF as opposed to seeing there's a DNF and deciding to pass on visiting the cache. 

If they make the mistake of passing on a cache because that didn't read a clearly written DNF that doesn't imply the cache is missing, that's their choice.

[+dprovan]

12 hours ago, niraD said:

Then the CHS algorithm is broken and needs to be fixed. [skritch]

Or eliminated.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Not a reviewer note, but an automated "friendly reminder" that gave the CO the option of fixing the cache (with no indication of anything wrong with it) or archiving the cache.

 

 

Have we got another example besides that one and only example that keeps cropping up in the forums for the last couple of years? Anything in 2019?

[+niraD]

47 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Have we got another example besides that one and only example that keeps cropping up in the forums for the last couple of years? Anything in 2019?

The post I was referring to (in the message that you quoted) said:

 

15 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

You and the CO may know the DNF with an explanation may not warrant a trip to check on the cache, but the CHS algorithm does not. And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

 

I stand by my point. If what Max and 99 said is accurate, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

People should not have to change the way they log their geocaching activities to suit the CHS. The CHS should accommodate the way people actually log their geocaching activities. To the extent that it does not, the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed.

[+Max and 99]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It's not broken. A reviewer makes the final decision. 

I feel bad that the CHS forces reviewers to have to check on caches and read DNFs to determine whether they take action. What a job. What a waste of time, too, sorting out DNF logs that have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the cache.

Today I was reminded of a massively long DNF note on my cache that had zero mention of the cache itself except two words: not found.