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

[+niraD]

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.

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+barefootjeff]

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.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

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.

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

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 May 18, 2020 by TeamRabbitRun

[+psychpineapple]

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. 

[+barefootjeff]

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.

[+thebruce0]

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.

[+The Jester]

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).

 

[+thebruce0]

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.

[+The Jester]

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. 

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+RedGuy11]

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

 

edit: touch the log

like i will unlock locked caches

Edited June 17, 2020 by RedGuy11

[+cerberus1]

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...

[+Max and 99]

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?

[+RedGuy11]

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...

...

[+The Jester]

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 June 17, 2020 by The Jester

[+RedGuy11]

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

I am fairly new (333 finds)

...that's NOT new

[+Max and 99]

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.

[+TmdAndGG]

Not this thread again!!!

[+TmdAndGG]

48 minutes ago, RedGuy11 said:

...that's NOT new

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

[+RocTheCacheBox]

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? 

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

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. 

[+niraD]

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.

[+ecanderson]

4 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

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

Bzzzzzzt.   Line crosssed.

 

[+G0ldNugget]

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.

[+niraD]

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...

[+SouthernMuse]

On 5/4/2020 at 3:29 PM, cerberus1 said:

The site has already said they won't allow "virtual" logging .  If it bugs you that much, tell on 'em.       

But this "folks at a climb" thing is getting kinda old...  If you personally know examples, how about saying something there ?

 

If I'm doing a risky climb, I'll have someone along even if they don't climb themselves.

I'll still need them for safety, for belay, gear maintenance, or even simply taking pics for me.  We're a team.  They claim the find too....

I'm pretty close to doing those again, but know I'm not gonna be 80% for some time.  Someone's coming with me, and they're claiming a find.

 

Your post doesn't say whether every person in the rope climb has done something to attend that climb.

I've cached with handicapped who can solve puzzles (I can't...) but can't climb (I can).  We're a team.  Both get to claim the find...

We've seen many examples where people have solved a dozen caches together, and each is doing "their part" somewhere, sometime during the day. 

They're a team.  They all get a find...  

I'm with you on this one. I've gone out with a team of three once. In one instance, I intuited where to look (my two nieces were sure it was five feet away and kept looking there). They found it where I pointed, but the tallest one reached it; I sure couldn't have. We each signed the log, which I encouraged. But personally, I think it's the camaraderie and fellowship that makes it a fun team thing, and the treasure-seeking, intellectual clue unraveling, and hiking that makes it fun, period (solo or group). That other stuff -- the armchair or virtual-video caches -- I don't get it, but I have known some people who just like to check things off a list, claim good grades and trophies whether they earned them or not, change a couple of dice while no one's looking and yell, "Yahtzee!" I guess they're the same ones who do armchair caching. Guess you have to put up with them. My own statistics are lousy. Can't say I haven't been tempted to fudge on minor things. And I have "discovered" a couple of coins published online. Seemed kind of silly and pointless at the time, but I smiled when I saw my improved stats (she says, sheepishly). 🤫

[+Gill & Tony]

I was at an event with my son.  A friend asked us to help.  She had solved the puzzle but couldn't climb the tree.  My son was fit enough to climb the tree but couldn't reach the lowest branch (and he is 6' 3").  I became the ladder he used to reach the first branch.

 

We all claimed the find.