Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
L0ne.R

Group Caching: Where do we draw the line in the sand?

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

So [something happens] and so you would log a DNF to add to the chance of the CO getting the attention of the automated system.

If the automated system cannot deal with the way people really log their geocaching activity, then the automated system needs to be fixed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, niraD said:

If the automated system cannot deal with the way people really log their geocaching activity, then the automated system needs to be fixed.

Personally I think the NM should get much more notice than a DNF, but I am not sure this happens. With the present system I do consider the automated system before I log a DNF. So I really do need to have searched before I will log that DNF. Otherwise it's a note.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Personally I think the NM should get much more notice than a DNF, but I am not sure this happens. With the present system I do consider the automated system before I log a DNF. So I really do need to have searched before I will log that DNF. Otherwise it's a note.

 

I did that for a while after getting a CHS ping on a new 2/5 multi after just one DNF, but decided that's counter-productive and the CHS algorithm-tweakers really need to see as many DNFs where there isn't a problem with the cache as possible.

 

I usually deem my search to start from the point where I set out on foot with backpack on back and GPSr in hand, and would only log a DNF en-route to that starting point if it was something like a road closure or flooded causeway that prematurely terminated my attempt. For something unrelated to the cache or its environment, like a car breakdown, I probably wouldn't log anything unless it was a sufficiently interesting story in its own right to go in a WN.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So your car breaks down half way there and you get no further, and so you would log a DNF to add to the chance of the CO getting the attention of the automated system. Why would you do that?

 

Sure. I've read the anecdotes about the dreaded Cache Health Score.

Will you be held hostage by that computer program?
My log would state that I broke down on the way.

 

Otherwise, the meaning of the DNF is fundamentally changed.

We lose the ability to say that we officially, for the record, simply didn't find a cache for fear of pissing off the computer.

 

That the game you want to play? Are you OK with that?

 

Get them to change the algorithm or how it's interpreted.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Sure. I've read the anecdotes about the dreaded Cache Health Score.

Will you be held hostage by that computer program?
My log would state that I broke down on the way.

 

Otherwise, the meaning of the DNF is fundamentally changed.

We lose the ability to say that we officially, for the record, simply didn't find a cache for fear of pissing off the computer.

 

That the game you want to play? Are you OK with that?

 

Get them to change the algorithm or how it's interpreted.

I have not changed in this. Before the algorithm I doubt I would have made a DNF if my car broke down half way there. I am doing this for what makes sense to me; not the algorithm.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have not changed in this. Before the algorithm I doubt I would have made a DNF if my car broke down half way there. I am doing this for what makes sense to me; not the algorithm.

 

OK, that's fine.

It's the essence of integrity (discussed nearby) that in the face of mere GUIDELINES, we each set our own RULES to stick to.

We're diff on this point about DNF & WN logs. Oh, well.

Cache on, friend!

Edited by TeamRabbitRun

Share this post


Link to post

Part of the problem is that if cachers see that the previous person dnf'ed it, they may not believe it may be there. I am fairly new (333 finds) and if I see that the last person couldn't find it, I go into it not sure if I can find it. I do like it when a person doesn't find it, but leaves a message saying why. Unfortunately not everyone does. If the dnf message says "I looked for this for 20 mins and couldn't find it" then that is a lot different than, "I looked for 5 mins but there was muggles around so I couldn't get a good look".

My way of thinking is, if I get to gz and look for 10 mins and can't find it (more if it is a higher difficulty rating), then I will log a dnf. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, psychpineapple said:

Part of the problem is that if cachers see that the previous person dnf'ed it, they may not believe it may be there. I am fairly new (333 finds) and if I see that the last person couldn't find it, I go into it not sure if I can find it.

 

Even if the last hundred people all found it and there are no DNFs, I'm still never sure if I can find it. I have a skill of not being able to find even the most obvious of hides. Of the 135 DNFs I've logged, only 23 were actually missing. Most of the time, a DNF is just a tale of an unsuccessful search rather than a guide to the state of the cache.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
23 hours ago, psychpineapple said:

Part of the problem is that if cachers see that the previous person dnf'ed it, they may not believe it may be there. I am fairly new (333 finds) and if I see that the last person couldn't find it, I go into it not sure if I can find it.

 

Even if the last hundred people all found it and there are no DNFs, I'm still never sure if I can find it.

 

Right but the point being made was that the existence of recent DNFs can affect one's thought process and confidence about finding a geocache. Not everyone of course, but it can. Fundamentally, if scanning the list of recent log types there are even 2 or 3 DNFs, the first thing that comes to mind is "it could be missing, or it's very very hard to find" - how I interpret that to my own finding strategy takes other factors into consideration. But the mere existence of DNF logs can affect that.

 

So I'm in agreement that if my car broke down halfway from home to the cache, I wouldn't log a DNF because that incident has nothing to do with anyone else's ability or experience in finding the cache.  But that's my ethic.  And knowing that others have a different ethic, I also combine checking recent log types with reading those logs. 3 DNFs will alter my consideration of a cache status; so I'll then read their detail to find out that 2 of them are irrelevant to what could be my experience, and the 3rd was someone giving up after 2 minutes?  Well than gimme a shot!

 

I've often gone searching for a cache, found it, then discovered there was a string of DNFs. That prompts another thought process - was I lucky? Was it one big group and they all logged it found though only one tried and reported it to the group?  Did the CO do a maintenance between the last DNF and my find without posting an OM?  Who knows...

 

In any case, that's why DNFs can affect a finder's consideration about a cache status when they decide to attempt to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Right but the point being made was that the existence of recent DNFs can affect one's thought process and confidence about finding a geocache. Not everyone of course, but it can. Fundamentally, if scanning the list of recent log types there are even 2 or 3 DNFs, the first thing that comes to mind is "it could be missing, or it's very very hard to find" - how I interpret that to my own finding strategy takes other factors into consideration. But the mere existence of DNF logs can affect that.

 

So I'm in agreement that if my car broke down halfway from home to the cache, I wouldn't log a DNF because that incident has nothing to do with anyone else's ability or experience in finding the cache.  But that's my ethic.  And knowing that others have a different ethic, I also combine checking recent log types with reading those logs. 3 DNFs will alter my consideration of a cache status; so I'll then read their detail to find out that 2 of them are irrelevant to what could be my experience, and the 3rd was someone giving up after 2 minutes?  Well than gimme a shot!

 

I've often gone searching for a cache, found it, then discovered there was a string of DNFs. That prompts another thought process - was I lucky? Was it one big group and they all logged it found though only one tried and reported it to the group?  Did the CO do a maintenance between the last DNF and my find without posting an OM?  Who knows...

 

In any case, that's why DNFs can affect a finder's consideration about a cache status when they decide to attempt to find it.

And sometimes a sting of DNF's prompts a search - I saw a new cache pop up one day not far from home, but I left it for later (I'm not much into the FTF anymore).  But a couple of hours later when I saw the string of DNF's from the "usual crew" I headed out right then to try.  One guy was still there (ripping up the brush with a hiking staff) and said every place had been searched.  I could see where searching had happened, but decided to start at the co-ords.  A few seconds later I asked him if he still wanted to keep searching or should I pull out the cache to be signed?  You had to be looking in just the right angle to see a small corner of the cache.  I might have waited a couple of days before going for that cache, except for that string of DNF's - often I see those as a challenge (depending on the D rating).

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Jester said:

And sometimes a sting of DNF's prompts a search

Heck even past finders may curious about a bunch of DNFs on a cache they previously found, and head out to double check.

Or maybe, as happened to me on occasion, there may be a group out caching for a day, one comes up with a bunch of dnfs and they decide to skip it, but one person has already found it, so they go and take a look because of the added knowledge. Find it or not, those past DNFs affected the decision-making.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Heck even past finders may curious about a bunch of DNFs on a cache they previously found, and head out to double check.

Or maybe, as happened to me on occasion, there may be a group out caching for a day, one comes up with a bunch of dnfs and they decide to skip it, but one person has already found it, so they go and take a look because of the added knowledge. Find it or not, those past DNFs affected the decision-making.

Oh, I quite agree with the bolded part - I was just countering the common thought that DNF's are always a negative impact on decision-making. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2020 at 1:42 AM, psychpineapple said:

Part of the problem is that if cachers see that the previous person dnf'ed it, they may not believe it may be there. I am fairly new (333 finds) and if I see that the last person couldn't find it, I go into it not sure if I can find it. I do like it when a person doesn't find it, but leaves a message saying why. Unfortunately not everyone does. If the dnf message says "I looked for this for 20 mins and couldn't find it" then that is a lot different than, "I looked for 5 mins but there was muggles around so I couldn't get a good look".

My way of thinking is, if I get to gz and look for 10 mins and can't find it (more if it is a higher difficulty rating), then I will log a dnf. 

That's where checking the difficulty rating is an assistance. If I see a cache with many DNFs, but it's rated 4D, I am more likely to presume it hasn't been found because it's a very tricky hide and give this a go myself at finding it. If I see a cache rated 1.5D with a string of DNFs I give it a miss because I presume it's missing. If by any chance I do search for a 1.5D with a string of DNFs (say if it's the only cache around) and I don't find it I add another DNF followed by a NM, and likely a month later a NA, if not fixed that is. With a sting of DNFs and not checked already by the CO, I expect I will be adding that NA. (Gees, I checked one of my caches yesterday with only one DNF...it was there. Okay, I was cycling past ;) and remembered the DNF and checked, but I would not leave a cache unchecked after several DNFs.) Some people underrate their caches on purpose; rating none over 2D/T (pre that 1.5D/T), so a 2D cache might actually be a 3or4D. I still give the NM, based on the rating.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

for me it's "i touch it, i log it"

 

edit: touch the log

like i will unlock locked caches

Edited by RedGuy11

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, RedGuy11 said:

for me it's "i touch it, i log it"

edit: touch the log

like i will unlock locked caches

 

For us and many others, you don't sign the log, your "smiley" goes bye-bye...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, RedGuy11 said:

for me it's "i touch it, i log it"

 

edit: touch the log

like i will unlock locked caches

How does the cache owner know that you touched the log? A DNA test?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

How does the cache owner know that you touched the log? A DNA test?

i just forget a pencil sometimes

it's usually lpcs

the owner doesn't care that one person didn't sign on one of his 400 lpcs

 

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

For us and many others, you don't sign the log, your "smiley" goes bye-bye...

...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

For us and many others, you don't sign the log, your "smiley" goes bye-bye...

 

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

How does the cache owner know that you touched the log? A DNA test?

I think it's like around here on group finds - on the small logs we sign a group name - many of the hunters (around GZ) will want to "touch" the log while someone signs the group name, so that they "know" they were in on the find.  This particularly true during Cache Machines.

 

ETA:  His reply came while I was typing.

Edited by The Jester

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/18/2020 at 10:42 AM, psychpineapple said:

I am fairly new (333 finds)

...that's NOT new

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Jester said:

 

I think it's like around here on group finds - on the small logs we sign a group name - many of the hunters (around GZ) will want to "touch" the log while someone signs the group name, so that they "know" they were in on the find.  This particularly true during Cache Machines.

 

ETA:  His reply came while I was typing.

If my wheelchair caching friend cannot reach the cache, he always insists on touching it before his name is signed on the log.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, RedGuy11 said:

...that's NOT new

That's pretty new compared to a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, RedGuy11 said:

i just forget a pencil sometimes

it's usually lpcs

the owner doesn't care that one person didn't sign on one of his 400 lpcs

 

21 hours ago, RedGuy11 said:

for me it's "i touch it, i log it"

 

edit: touch the log

like i will unlock locked caches

 

Anyone need a good example of a bad example? :blink:

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2020 at 11:12 AM, CAVinoGal said:

Example: A couple of days ago, hubby and I were caching in a residential neighborhood.  Coordinates led us to a bush, in full bloom, and covered with honeybees.  I. don't. like. bees.  But I bravely walked around and was the first one to spot the camoed container hanging about eye level, 24" into the bush.  Hubby reached in and grabbed it (it would have been a real stretch for my short arms anyway), passed it out to me so I could sign our names on the log, then I passed it back to him to rehang in the bush.  We both claimed the find on our separate accounts.  If we had a third person, we all would have claimed it as well.  This is how we geocache as a "group".  I never considered it was NOT the way to do things.  And I still feel that those kinds of "finds" are legitimate.

 

Thanks for this post. It makes sense. I always wondered about "group" finds. I know a large group that goes out together traveling in other towns and states, they then split up, find caches, and they each log them. If you weren't there...then is it fair to log them although someone in your group that day has found them?  I don't do groups for the sole purpose to rack up points. Where is the fun in that? But I do cache with my husband and sometimes relatives but we find them together and we each log a smiley. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

If you weren't there...then is it fair to log them although someone in your group that day has found them?

No. That's just another form of armchair logging.

 

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

But I do cache with my husband and sometimes relatives but we find them together and we each log a smiley. 

Exactly. The point of group caching is to find caches together with the group. Maybe the cache is best done by a group. Maybe it's just a regular cache. But you're doing it with a group because you want to go geocaching with the group.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

... they then split up, find caches, and they each log them.

Bzzzzzzt.   Line crosssed.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/5/2020 at 5:49 PM, niraD said:

Absolutely. When I'm with a group, I prefer "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style geocaching, so everyone has the opportunity to find the cache. But I've been in groups that insisted on "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, where everyone declares victory as soon as anyone finds the cache. In groups using "Three Musketeers" style geocaching, some members of the group may still be on the way to GZ when the cache is found, but everyone still logs a Find...

 

I guess we use the "Three Musketeers" style, but have developed our own rules for the group. The finder gets to sign first but also returns the cache because they know just how it was found.

 

My granddaughter loves geocaching, she's good at it and really fast! By the time I've collected my gear and stepped out of the car, she's already shouting, "Found It!" We have discussed a new rule making her wait in the car for 3 minutes to give us geezers a head start.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, G0ldNugget said:

The finder gets to sign first but also returns the cache because they know just how it was found.

When our groups play "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style, we follow a similar rule. Whoever retrieves the container is the one to replace the container. Often, that's whoever spotted it last though, because everyone else is offering "hotter" and "colder" hints aplenty...

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...