Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
JL_HSTRE

Relation Between DNF Rate and Difficulty Rating

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Jester said:
4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I disagree.    "Heading to" the cache isn't looking for it.   Once you're in the area presented by coordinates, you're looking for it.

IMO the hunt for a cache includes all of the approach - finding parking spots (when not supplied), finding the right trail/access path (when trails don't exist), crossing obstacles (streams, gullies, canyons, ridges, blackberry vines, etc.), finding all the multi waypoints, etc. etc. etc. - if anything included in that 'fails' then I didn't find the cache, hence a DNF log. 

 

I remember a cache that I was going to find and pulled into a parking area, and could see the beginning of the trail.  Then I could some weather moving in and as it was getting late in the day, didn't even get out of the car for the half mile hike to the cache.  I didn't log a DNF or even a note.   I don't consider "starting to look" until I've at least left a vehicle.  Everything up to that point is what I call driving.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I remember a cache that I was going to find and pulled into a parking area, and could see the beginning of the trail.  Then I could some weather moving in and as it was getting late in the day, didn't even get out of the car for the half mile hike to the cache.  I didn't log a DNF or even a note.   I don't consider "starting to look" until I've at least left a vehicle.  Everything up to that point is what I call driving.

If you're every out this way try my Drive-by Caching - all the waypoints are done while driving to the final short walk.  With that one most of the hunt is driving. 

 

I remember caching before maps were on the GPSr (yes, we had to hand-crank the GPRs while on the dinosaur :D).  Sometimes the whole trick was to find how to approach GZ, find parking, and/or find the trail.  So that's where my mindset comes from. YMMV.  But I feel sorry for all the 'noobs' with their fancy voice directions (phone or GPSr) telling them where to drive and hand holding until they reach GZ, you missed out on the real adventures.

 

As to rain - this area is fondly called the Great Pacific NorthWet, here if you don't learn to cache* in the rain, you don't cache*.  And flashlights are for when it gets dark (should be part of your 10 Essentials).

 

But to each his own.  We can spend the rest of the pandemic trading stories & examples of when or not I/you have posted a DNF.  I remember learning "The exception proves the Rule" way back when (no comment on how long ago that was).

 

*or any other outside activity.  I've hiked, biked, skied, rock climbed, paddled, skin dived (well, you're wet anyhow), mountain climbed, camped and more in our liquid sunshine.  It's all part of the adventure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Sometimes the whole trick was to find how to approach GZ, find parking, and/or find the trail.

 

The T4.5 cache I did for my 1000th find was like that, except for much of the way there was no trail to find, instead it was a matter of finding a passable route through the cliffs, gullies and dense undergrowth. On the cache page, the CO describes the route he and his mate took to get there but quite a few of the earlier finders tried coming in from the north, which looked like an easier route on the satellite images but was apparently quite a different story on the ground. One of those finders wrote:

 

Quote

It started feeling like an episode of "I shouldn't be alive". I was getting very light-headed and needed to lie down every few hundred metres so as not to pass out. So much bush bashing and spider removal. Finally I made it to near that waypoint I mentioned earlier (from another cache) and had to head back to the trailhead. This time I bashed downhill to the other track that I could see on satellite view and when I finally got to it, I was so relieved to see that this was a much better track. After all the bush bashing, this way was luxury, even though it was still quite up and down. Finally back to the trailhead and tarmac; now the walk back to the parking waypoint felt like it went forever, but I was so relieved to finally see the car at about 5pm, 7 hours after I'd left it.

 

So our group did our homework, deciding where to park so we could "easily" pass under the motorway and plotting out a series of waypoints to at least get us down along the spur into Cascade Gully, but once on the other side it was all just trial and error. If we'd reached an impasse (or got the wrong solution to the puzzle and ended up at the wrong GZ - there's no checker) those would have been heroic (but invalid) DNFs for us to write up and log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If we'd reached an impasse (or got the wrong solution to the puzzle and ended up at the wrong GZ - there's no checker) those would have been heroic (but invalid) DNFs for us to write up and log.

Not invalid DNFs. In that case, it first shows that a checker is needed, and also if it's a multicache (was it?) that perhaps there is something ambiguous about the questions.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not invalid DNFs. In that case, it first shows that a checker is needed, and also if it's a multicache (was it?) that perhaps there is something ambiguous about the questions.

 

It was a puzzle cache but a pretty easy puzzle: go to the listed coordinates and which of these four views do you see?

 

Quote
10 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I disagree.    "Heading to" the cache isn't looking for it.   Once you're in the area presented by coordinates, you're looking for it.

 

With that cache, there's no searching at GZ since there are spoiler photos in the description showing exactly where it's hidden. That one is all about the journey.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/26/2020 at 7:13 PM, barefootjeff said:

If being defeated by the terrain doesn't count as a legitimate DNF, why does the CHS include the cache's terrain rating in its ponderings?

 

Since we don't know how the CHS algorithm works this is purely speculative: I would guess that, all other things being equal, a higher Terrain cache gets more grace from the CHS because it's harder for the CO to check, tends to get less activity even when there's nothing wrong with it, and (in most cases) is in an area less likely to be muggled.

 

23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess they can't be DNFs because I could actually see the cache but not reach it, and, if the ones I couldn't get close enough to see or not see aren't DNFs either, that doesn't leave much scope in between unless the cache was actually missing. I give up.

 

It you can see the cache, but not reach it then you have found the cache but technically have not done enough to log a Find.

 

Just because the cache is there is no gurantee of finding it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

It you can see the cache, but not reach it then you have found the cache but technically have not done enough to log a Find.

 

But there is no log for a found It (small "f" - see the cache, but not access it) only for Found It (large 'F' - as GC guidelines define it).  If you haven't done the technical pieces to claim a Find, you haven't Found It.  As there is nothing between a Found It and Did Not Find log, not Finding it means you Did Not Find it so why isn't a DNF the proper log type to use?  

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, The Jester said:

But there is no log for a found It (small "f" - see the cache, but not access it) only for Found It (large 'F' - as GC guidelines define it).  If you haven't done the technical pieces to claim a Find, you haven't Found It.  As there is nothing between a Found It and Did Not Find log, not Finding it means you Did Not Find it so why isn't a DNF the proper log type to use?  

 

There IS a log between Found and DNF: Write Note.

 

To quote the Guidelines section previous quoted by someone else in this thread: Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. It does not say "when you find it, but aren't able to sign the log."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

There IS a log between Found and DNF: Write Note.

 

To quote the Guidelines section previous quoted by someone else in this thread: Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. It does not say "when you find it, but aren't able to sign the log."

Write Note has no bearing on Find/Did Not Find.  It is a generic log, but does nothing to flag a cache like the Find/DNF  do (happy face/frowny face).  Yes, you can write anything using WN that you want, but it's not 'between' a Find and Did Not Find.

 

In Geocaching a Find is defined as accessing and signing the log, seeing the cache is not a Find.  By not accessing and signing the log you have not Found It, hence a DNF.  Besides how do you know what you have seen is the cache until it's been opened?  I've seen caches with 'red herring' containers.  Locating a container has little bearing on Finding a cache until it's opened and the log is signed.  A DNF is Did Not Find (by GC definition), not a DNL (did not locate).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

To quote the Guidelines section previous quoted by someone else in this thread: Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. It does not say "when you find it, but aren't able to sign the log."

 

So if you include a photo of the cache in its hiding place in the description, it should never get a DNF unless it's missing, right? I mean, how can you look for something when you already know where it is before you leave home?

 

Well, um, there's a cache in the Watagan Mountains hidden in a gully with poor GPS reception so the CO did precisely that. Yet although it's never gone missing (still the original logbook in the original container), it's had 24 DNFs from 49 finds. Are they all fake DNFs?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

So if you include a photo of the cache in its hiding place in the description, it should never get a DNF unless it's missing, right? I mean, how can you look for something when you already know where it is before you leave home?

 

Well, um, there's a cache in the Watagan Mountains hidden in a gully with poor GPS reception so the CO did precisely that. Yet although it's never gone missing (still the original logbook in the original container), it's had 24 DNFs from 49 finds. Are they all fake DNFs?

 

Who said anything about "fake" DNFs? Just because a DNF is logged when it arguably shouldn't doesn't make it "fake."

 

Just because you know what the container looks like and what the place it was hidden looks like (or more accurately: looked like when it was hidden) doesn't mean you will be able to find it. Especially, as you say, the area has poor GPS reception. GZ is never perfect.

 

Heck, it's possible to DNF a cache that's still where it belongs even though you found it before. Your memory may be fuzzy, or the area has changed, or you simply missed it.

 

Everyone knows what Waldo looks like. Lots of people have trouble spotting him.

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Jester said:

Write Note has no bearing on Find/Did Not Find.  It is a generic log, but does nothing to flag a cache like the Find/DNF  do (happy face/frowny face).  Yes, you can write anything using WN that you want, but it's not 'between' a Find and Did Not Find.

 

In Geocaching a Find is defined as accessing and signing the log, seeing the cache is not a Find.  By not accessing and signing the log you have not Found It, hence a DNF.  Besides how do you know what you have seen is the cache until it's been opened?  I've seen caches with 'red herring' containers.  Locating a container has little bearing on Finding a cache until it's opened and the log is signed.  A DNF is Did Not Find (by GC definition), not a DNL (did not locate).

 

You seem to putting the Find/DNF flag's benefit to you ahead of your Found/DNF/Note benefit to the CO and other seekers.

 

Also, by your logic, if you locate what you think is the cache, open it and confirm it really is the cache, but can't sign the log then it's a DNF. You can certainly make the case it's not technically a Find and can choose not to log it until you come back again later. However, logging a DNF because you forgot your pen or the log is wet is misleading and unhelpful. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

You seem to putting the Find/DNF flag's benefit to you ahead of your Found/DNF/Note benefit to the CO and other seekers.

 

Also, by your logic, if you locate what you think is the cache, open it and confirm it really is the cache, but can't sign the log then it's a DNF. You can certainly make the case it's not technically a Find and can choose not to log it until you come back again later. However, logging a DNF because you forgot your pen or the log is wet is misleading and unhelpful. 

 

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a DNF log on a low D-rated cache has to mean it's likely to be missing, when we already have another log type specifically for that purpose. Or is the whole idea to get rid of NMs because people are scared of them?

 

None of my caches are cleverly camouflaged for concealment (there's no need as they're not in high muggle locations), with my highest concealment D-rating being a 2 (my multis and puzzles have higher D ratings due to the extra elements in those), yet I've had about 60 DNF logs across my hides with only two of those being due a missing cache. The common usage of DNF logs, at least in these parts, doesn't gel with your strict interpretation of when they should be used. Around here, cachers generally log a DNF whenever their attempt at finding a cache was unsuccessful no matter what the reason. It's the content of those logs that's helpful to COs and future searchers, not their number.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if you include a photo of the cache in its hiding place in the description, it should never get a DNF unless it's missing, right? I mean, how can you look for something when you already know where it is before you leave home?

 

Well, um, there's a cache in the Watagan Mountains hidden in a gully with poor GPS reception so the CO did precisely that. Yet although it's never gone missing (still the original logbook in the original container), it's had 24 DNFs from 49 finds. Are they all fake DNFs?

If they went to GZ they are legitimate DNFs. Not everyone look at pictures. Also the environment changes over time or a previous finder moved the cache a bit so the picture might not be accurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

If they went to GZ they are legitimate DNFs. Not everyone look at pictures. Also the environment changes over time or a previous finder moved the cache a bit so the picture might not be accurate.

 

Rocks don't change much over the span of a few years. This is from the 2013 cache page photo:

 

Spoiler.jpg.6dc327513bb47f762b6e6105b943b001.jpg

 

This is when I found it in late 2014:

 

Find.jpg.7595fc97b86bb5ceee27ce0b720e91c7.jpg

 

And this was on a return visit in 2016:

 

ReturnVisit.jpg.e94b747041871de6c9461e68aff528d3.jpg

 

The DNFers were all searching near GZ but not at GZ as they'd all neglected to take the photo with them. A lot just had the cache as part of a PQ or off-line list during the nearby Morisset mega in 2018 so probably never even looked at the cache page before they left home. Various finders, including me, have posted the coordinates they had at GZ but they're as much all over the shop as the CO's original coordinates. GPS reception in there is just plain poor and varies depending on the satellite constellation visible at the time. The thing is, none of those 24 DNFs were due to a problem with the cache, rather it was poor preparation that brought them undone.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Also, by your logic, if you locate what you think is the cache, open it and confirm it really is the cache, but can't sign the log then it's a DNF. You can certainly make the case it's not technically a Find and can choose not to log it until you come back again later. However, logging a DNF because you forgot your pen or the log is wet is misleading and unhelpful. 

 

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a DNF log on a low D-rated cache has to mean it's likely to be missing, when we already have another log type specifically for that purpose. Or is the whole idea to get rid of NMs because people are scared of them?

 

Just a reminder: there were mentions in another threads some time ago about reviewers treating NM as not a legitimate one if you did not found the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Look, I'm not saying my way is the only way. If someone wants to only log DNFs when they've exhaustively searched GZ and are convinced the cache is missing or camouflaged beyond their ability to see it, that's fine. But if someone else considers any failed attempt to be a DNF, that's also fine. I won't log a DNF if I fail to complete a multi because of time constraints, because I don't consider that to be a part of the cache or its environment, but others do, like the recent one I had on my multi where the searcher had a train to catch, and that's fine by me. I just take exception to my (and others) DNFs being deemed invalid because the failed attempt wasn't due to either clever camo or a missing cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rapotek said:

 

Just a reminder: there were mentions in another threads some time ago about reviewers treating NM as not a legitimate one if you did not found the cache.

 

HQ seem to think otherwise:

 

image.png.1b7846ff4e6777718f24a9bbafb72863.png

That option appears when logging a DNF.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rapotek said:

 

 

Just a reminder: there were mentions in another threads some time ago about reviewers treating NM as not a legitimate one if you did not found the cache.

They can judge it on its worth. The last NM I logged on a cache I hadn't visited (I do this rarely), was an urban 1.5D cache that hadn't had a find for more than a year and a string of DNFs. The reviewer came in and Disabled the cache.

Anyway, how does one find a missing cache? If what you say happened, if a cache is missing and no-one can find it, and the CO is inactive, the cache would never be archived.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Anyway, how does one find a missing cache? If what you say happened, if a cache is missing and no-one can find it, and the CO is inactive, the cache would never be archived.

 

Yes, the reviewers here have said that they won't accept an NA unless there's already been an NM that the CO hasn't responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

HQ seem to think otherwise:

 

image.png.1b7846ff4e6777718f24a9bbafb72863.png

That option appears when logging a DNF.

 

14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

They can judge it on its worth. The last NM I logged on a cache I hadn't visited (I do this rarely), was an urban 1.5D cache that hadn't had a find for more than a year and a string of DNFs. The reviewer came in and Disabled the cache.

Anyway, how does one find a missing cache? If what you say happened, if a cache is missing and no-one can find it, and the CO is inactive, the cache would never be archived.

 

It is good to see that the approach I mentioned is not a common and official one now :)

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

You seem to putting the Find/DNF flag's benefit to you ahead of your Found/DNF/Note benefit to the CO and other seekers.

 

Also, by your logic, if you locate what you think is the cache, open it and confirm it really is the cache, but can't sign the log then it's a DNF. You can certainly make the case it's not technically a Find and can choose not to log it until you come back again later. However, logging a DNF because you forgot your pen or the log is wet is misleading and unhelpful. 

Like I stated before, this nitpicking is ridiculous.  Did you Find the cache, yes or no - simple.  

 

BTW, yes if I open a cache and the field puzzle prevents from accessing the log to sign it, it's a DNF.  As to wet logs/no pen, those are you're words not mine - I can mark the log in many ways, so no DNF.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, the reviewers here have said that they won't accept an NA unless there's already been an NM that the CO hasn't responded to.

A friend had a NA on a cache recently. No other DNFs, no NM; the fairly new geocacher's response to not being able to find a cache was to log a NA and write, "It's missing." Rather 'spoilt' of them! They can't find it, so obviously it's not there :rolleyes:. We checked, and the cache was still there, in full view. When we checked the log, it had been changed to a DNF. Our guess, the reviewer did that.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Sorry, but I still don't understand why a DNF log on a low D-rated cache has to mean it's likely to be missing, when we already have another log type specifically for that purpose. Or is the whole idea to get rid of NMs because people are scared of them?

 

DNF on a D1 cache = cache is probably missing OR the D-rating needs to be higher

DNF on a D3 cache = cache might be missing OR it might just be a difficult hide

 

The absence of DNFs does not necessarily mean your high-D cache should be lowered. Accumulation of DNFs should be a minimum criteria. If my D5 cache requires a very particular tool to open that cachers do no normally have, but this is made clear on the cache page and everyone who seeks the cache comes prepared with that tool then it might not get any DNFs. A very easy multicache that takes more than an hour to complete should typically be D3 (maybe D2.5). It's similiar how a handicapped-accessible cache is not T1 if the nearest trailhead is 5 miles away.

 

NM logs sometimes accompanying Finds, sometimes accompanying DNFs, and sometimes neither. If a D1.5 cache had 100 consecutive Finds followed by 10 DNFs, all by cachers with over a thousand finds each, I don't need to search for it myself to determine the CO needs to check on it.

 

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

None of my caches are cleverly camouflaged for concealment (there's no need as they're not in high muggle locations), with my highest concealment D-rating being a 2 (my multis and puzzles have higher D ratings due to the extra elements in those), yet I've had about 60 DNF logs across my hides with only two of those being due a missing cache. The common usage of DNF logs, at least in these parts, doesn't gel with your strict interpretation of when they should be used. Around here, cachers generally log a DNF whenever their attempt at finding a cache was unsuccessful no matter what the reason. It's the content of those logs that's helpful to COs and future searchers, not their number.

 

If you exclude caches from a search based on recent DNFs, the log type is more important that the log content. While you might check the log content for a specific cache, that's not feasible when running a PQ or the GSAK equivalent.

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If you exclude caches from a search based on recent DNFs, the log type is more important that the log content. While you might check the log content for a specific cache, that's not feasible when running a PQ or the GSAK equivalent.

Inclusion/exclusion by log type will always have false inclusions/exclusion - just see the Found It = Didn't Find It thread.  And by using WN's to indicate problems (such as a road washout) would mean cache's with access (or other) problems are included, even though they can't be found.  So while the user has chosen to assigned a higher priority to the log type, content is really more important.

 

The DNF exclusion workflow is a choice the person makes, and they should be aware of the above.  I've used it occasionally to cut down the number of caches I load to the GPSr when traveling (after I use minimum Fav points) - fully aware I might be leaving off a wonderful cache that I'd love.  But I only have so much time when passing through a state, so when I get close I'll read the (limited number) descriptions to see which I'll try for.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

DNF on a D1 cache = cache is probably missing OR the D-rating needs to be higher

DNF on a D3 cache = cache might be missing OR it might just be a difficult hide

 

Where is this stated in the Guidelines or Help Centre? Or are you just making it up to support your own argument? The higher terrain D1s (T4, T4.5) that require some heroic climbing get occasional DNFs from those who get there only to find it's beyond their ability. At the other end of the scale, just because it's a D1 doesn't mean there won't be a muggle sitting right on top of it or some other temporary obstruction that prevents the cache from being accessed.

 

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If you exclude caches from a search based on recent DNFs, the log type is more important that the log content. While you might check the log content for a specific cache, that's not feasible when running a PQ or the GSAK equivalent.

 

Last time I looked, none of the search tools on the GC website allow you to exclude caches with recent DNFs. If you want to use third party tools to do such searches, you can't expect everyone to modify their logging behaviour to suit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/29/2020 at 2:30 PM, Lynx Humble said:

If they went to GZ they are legitimate DNFs. Not everyone look at pictures. Also the environment changes over time or a previous finder moved the cache a bit so the picture might not be accurate.

 

Further to this, I was up in the Watagan Mountains today doing some other caches so I wandered down into the gully where that cache with the spoiler photo is and took a photo of how it looks today. Here's the comparison:

 

Comparison.jpg.54fbac5ca7f10845d05db5e33d54612d.jpg

 

Apart from the stick that's no longer there, not a whole lot has changed. Same rocks, same moss and same leaf litter. The cache itself was in exactly the same spot as when I found it in 2014 and revisited in 2016, which is not surprising as there's only one place within the frame of the photo that it could be hidden. The cache doesn't look much different either:

 

Cache.jpg.58b45c6e0f815a053ab8837f3f1337a7.jpg

 

So it probably doesn't need to be archived in spite of those 24 DNFs. The only real problem it has is people not reading the description before going out after it.

 

Which brings me to this (and maybe this needs a thread of its own). When rating the Difficulty of a cache (and Terrain too I guess), should the CO assume that seekers will read the description beforehand? Or should they assume that seekers will just load the GPX file into their GPSr or offline list into their phone and blindly follow the arrow? There's a few of mine that would have to have their terrain raised to 4.5 or 5 as just following the arrow from the nearest road will lead you to the wrong side of a cliff. Likewise, for a cache hidden in a totally dark place where you need to bring a torch, should that be a D5 since you can't assume people will, even if you emphasise that in the description and include the Flashlight Required attribute?

 

Just curious, because a fair number of DNFs are due to people not reading the description before they leave home.

 

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The higher terrain D1s (T4, T4.5) that require some heroic climbing get occasional DNFs from those who get there only to find it's beyond their ability.

Hopefully the T rating is including in the consideration; not just the D rating, whether this gets a reviewer's attention.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

DNF on a D1 cache = cache is probably missing OR the D-rating needs to be higher

DNF on a D3 cache = cache might be missing OR it might just be a difficult hide

 

Like Jeff, I disagree with the implication that it's missing due to a single (or even a few in a row) DNFs.  I've DNFed my fair share of D1 and D1.5 caches which were subsequently found by the next seeker to know that I can have a bad day or my phone or GPS can be really wonky and that can be the problem.  The odds will show that it's more likely that it is missing than not missing but to assume it is based on someone else's DNF means you're taking their DNF as some kind of "proof" that you believe it's missing, despite the fact that they may not have gotten to GZ to search, may be brand new cachers who have no idea what they're doing yet, or simply overlooked it.

 

19 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If my D5 cache requires a very particular tool to open that cachers do no normally have, but this is made clear on the cache page and everyone who seeks the cache comes prepared with that tool then it might not get any DNFs.

 

By the guidelines, a special tool that's required is a 5D, but if you're going to walk them through it and tell them what they need, I'm not sure I'd rate it a 5D. I'm not sure it's a "mental challenge" to read on the cache page that you need to bring "this" tool with you to access the log.  That's just about the same as telling someone how to open a gadget cache in the description.  "Pull this lever, remove this piece of wood that's loose now, use the magnet you find inside to pull out the screw and then the bottom will open so you can sign the log."  If you had provided this type of instruction in the description of a gadget cache, then how could you rate it higher than a 1D?  There's nothing that the cacher has to do, other than to follow instructions.  The same goes for whatever special tool it is that you specifically tell them to bring.  A big part of the difficulty is figuring out which tool you'll need but you've already provided that part so I'm not sure that a 5D would be warranted.

 

The most extreme mental challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, tools, or significant effort to find, solve, or open.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/29/2020 at 5:35 PM, barefootjeff said:

Where is this stated in the Guidelines or Help Centre? Or are you just making it up to support your own argument?

 

I refer you to the OP...

 

On 9/24/2020 at 7:28 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

Excluding DNFs because the cache is missing, bad coords, or similar problems what do you think should be the ratio of Finds to DNFs for various Difficulty ratings?

 

It seems like your opinion is the two should be unrelated. 

Edited by JL_HSTRE

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:
On 9/30/2020 at 7:35 AM, barefootjeff said:

Where is this stated in the Guidelines or Help Centre? Or are you just making it up to support your own argument?

 

I refer you to the OP...

 

Which I read as a postulation, nothing more:

 

Quote

Excluding DNFs because the cache is missing, bad coords, or similar problems what do you think should be the ratio of Finds to DNFs for various Difficulty ratings?

 

This particular seems relevant since lots of DNFs can cause a low CHS. Obviously, DNF rate is not the only reason for Difficulty rating. Other factors include: puzzles/challenges, tools required, takes more than an hour, requires teamwork. This is about the minimum Difficulty relative to the DNFs.

 

My thoughts:

 

D1 = should never get a DNF

 

I've DNFed a fair few D1 caches that weren't missing, had bad coordinates or similar problems. Sometimes I just couldn't see the obvious, probably because my preconception of what I was looking for was wrong, sometimes it's because of temporary obstructions such as muggles crowded around GZ, sometimes it's because of environmental factors (mosquitoes, etc.) and sometimes I've been defeated by the terrain. This is apparently wrong, yet the only justification for it being wrong is your assertion that D1s should never get DNFs unless they're missing or have other problems.

 

53 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

It seems like your opinion is the two should be unrelated. 

 

The world isn't black or white. There will obviously be some correlation between DNF rate and difficulty rating, all I'm saying is it's not as absolute as you're making out. D1s can get DNFs for all sorts of reasons and D5s can get lots of finds once word gets out on the PAF network, for example. Then there are D5 puzzles that don't get any DNFs because people don't DNF a puzzle cache just because they can't solve the puzzle.

 

There are wide regional and individual differences in DNF usage. At one extreme are those who will either log a find or DNF once they set foot out the door and at the other, those who'll only log a DNF if they're convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the cache is missing. Most cachers, including me, are probably somewhere in between those two extremes. Branding someone's DNFs as "invalid" because they don't fit one of those schools of thought is, well, unjust in my opinion. Things like the CHS and third party search tools have to take into account the variability of DNF usage, not the other way around.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I've DNFed a fair few D1 caches that weren't missing, had bad coordinates or similar problems. Sometimes I just couldn't see the obvious, probably because my preconception of what I was looking for was wrong, sometimes it's because of temporary obstructions such as muggles crowded around GZ, sometimes it's because of environmental factors (mosquitoes, etc.) and sometimes I've been defeated by the terrain. This is apparently wrong, yet the only justification for it being wrong is your assertion that D1s should never get DNFs unless they're missing or have other problems.

 

A true D1 cache should be fairly rare, as a true T1 is. It should most be limited to large, impossible to miss hides like five-gallon buckets, an ammo can uncovered on the back side of a prominent tree, or really obvious Virtuals (take a photo of yourself with the lighthouse).

 

I think COs tend to underrate Difficulty.

 

I think that using the number of DNFs as a hurdle for D-rating would help bring some clarity to an otherwise vague rating system. I emphasis hurdle, as in a minimum bar to clear, but not the only factor.

 

T-rating is actually remarkably clear in most instances, with specified ratings for distance, trail surface, climbing, and wading.

 

Given that we can accept...

A. a tree climbing cache in a paved parking lot is T4ish

B. a handicap-accessible cache on a level, paved trail but 5 miles from the nearest trailhead is not T1

...then why can we not accept that D1 getting DNFs is problematic?

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The world isn't black or white. There will obviously be some correlation between DNF rate and difficulty rating, all I'm saying is it's not as absolute as you're making out. D1s can get DNFs for all sorts of reasons and D5s can get lots of finds once word gets out on the PAF network, for example. Then there are D5 puzzles that don't get any DNFs because people don't DNF a puzzle cache just because they can't solve the puzzle.

 

There are wide regional and individual differences in DNF usage. At one extreme are those who will either log a find or DNF once they set foot out the door and at the other, those who'll only log a DNF if they're convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the cache is missing. Most cachers, including me, are probably somewhere in between those two extremes. Branding someone's DNFs as "invalid" because they don't fit one of those schools of thought is, well, unjust in my opinion. Things like the CHS and third party search tools have to take into account the variability of DNF usage, not the other way around.

 

That's the point. To make a vague, inconsistent system closer to being black and white, even if will never get all the way there. To bring order to chaos. The log types are few and finite so they need to be used somewhat consistently.

 

The inconsistency of D/T ratings and Find vs DNF is a problem to be solved.

 

The way you talk we might as well dispense with Finds and DNFs entirely, and instead everyone should use Notes.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

...then why can we not accept that D1 getting DNFs is problematic?

 

Sigh, because there are more ways for an attempt at finding a cache to fail than just by being fooled by the camo or the cache being missing. The D-rating reflects just one of the obstacles the CO and mother nature have put in the way of finding the cache. It's not just me, that's the common usage of DNFs, at least in this part of the world, but every time I quote examples of such "defeated by the terrain" or "defeated by the environment" DNFs, all you can say is that they're invalid and wrong. That seems like a circular argument to me.

 

Six of the traditionals I've hidden are D2 but two of those have never had a DNF. Does that mean they're over-rated and should really be D1? I rated them D2 because of the time it will likely take searching for them at GZ. The definition for D2 in the Help Centre says "Relatively easy to find or solve within 30 minutes", it doesn't say anything about expected numbers of DNFs.

 

On the other hand, I have one D1 traditional. It's not a five-gallon bucket, rather it's a small Sistema hidden between a rock shelf and the base of a red gum tree that appears to be growing straight out of the rock. There's a photo of the hiding place on the cache page, the description says "Stay south of the creek until you reach the lower rock platform from where you can easily cross to a magnificent red gum growing sideways out of the rock" and the hint says "wood coming from rock". It's a tough walk in there and I wanted it to be an easy find for those who make the effort.

 

44f535da-c22a-4cff-b035-6b707fb348ce_l.j

 

So far it hasn't had any DNFs but I'm sure eventually it will when someone is defeated by the terrain or goes in there without looking at the description and photos on the cache page. You don't have to look at the photos, but if you do, I think it meets the definition of a D1 which is "Easy to find or solve within a few minutes."

 

8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The way you talk we might as well dispense with Finds and DNFs entirely, and instead everyone should use Notes.

 

Huh? What makes you say that? If you go out caching and you conquer the terrain, spot the cache, retrieve it, open it and sign the logbook, that's a Find log. If you don't complete all of those things but were trying to it's a DNF. If you revisit a previously found cache to drop a TB, for example, or want to report on the progress you've made in solving a puzzle, working through a complex multi or a challenge, or anything else that's not reporting the outcome of an attempted search, that's a WN. For the most part, that's the common usage of those three log types in this neck of the woods at least, and nothing you say here is going to change that.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The inconsistency of D/T ratings and Find vs DNF is a problem to be solved.

I don't think there is a "problem to be solved" with either of these, just my opinion!

 

And regarding the Find, DNF, Write Note log types:

32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

For the most part, that's the common usage of those three log types in this neck of the woods at least, and nothing you say here is going to change that.

 

Perhaps the "inconsistency" of the ratings and log type usage is largely a factor of regional differences, as pointed out by BFJeff's post.  Folks come into this "game" and learn from the locals (as we have) and tend to pattern their ratings of caches owned after the ones they have found.  The same for logs - you learn from the locals and follow the same pattern when you log DNF's, FInds, etc.

 

For the most part, I think most regions of the world are generally in line with GS published guidelines for cache ratings, but there are regional differences.  And logs are a lot more variable, regionally and personally - we each have our own idea of what WE log as a DNF, or a Write Note,  based on what we've learned from others as we learned the game, and what we've developed as our own style and way of recording our geocaching history.

 

I don't think you can truly correlate DNF's and Difficulty ratings.  It would seem that the higher the Difficulty, the more DNF's it will generate, that just intuitively makes sense to me.  But people don't always record DNF's on the difficult ones, and as we've seen, DNF's are also recorded on low D rated caches where some would argue they shouldn't be.  The D rating is only one factor affecting whether an individual finds a particular cache, so any attempt to correlate the two directly will be flawed.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Six of the traditionals I've hidden are D2 but two of those have never had a DNF. Does that mean they're over-rated and should really be D1?

 

It's right here in the post you are responding to.

 

23 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I think that using the number of DNFs as a hurdle for D-rating would help bring some clarity to an otherwise vague rating system. I emphasize hurdle, as in a minimum bar to clear, but not the only factor.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just got this DNF on a D2 traditional, one of the Barrenjoey Headland caches I adopted a couple of years back.

 

Quote

Didn't find itDidn't find it

02/10/2020

Track really overgrown and tricky to find. Managed to get just past the old huts and had to turn around.

 

I last visited that cache in June and the track looked to have been recently cleared. The track proper doesn't start until after the old cottage, as shown by this trailhead reference point on the cache page where there's a short scramble up from the beach:

 

ReferencePoint.jpg.3c64d83d4026da56c17bc181294c640f.jpg

 

There's remnants of an old track along the front of the cottage, though, and I suspect that's what they were on. But they were trying to find the cache and didn't succeed so they logged a DNF even though the cache probably isn't missing. That's how people log such misadventures here.

 

  • Helpful 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 2

×
×
  • Create New...