Bad Cachers

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone".

 

Or maybe it means (emphasis added to the description in the Help Center article Log types):

Quote

Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

 

The basic definition is "when you look for a cache but do not find it". Everything else is speculation. And for the speculation that a cache may be "extra difficult to find", there is no limitation on what might make a cache extra difficult to find for any particular geocacher or at any particular time.

 

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Many log types are strange.

Only if you contort them and make them strange.

 

 

I get that the CHS has encoded a lot of speculation into a software system. But the meanings of the logs haven't changed, and the CHS needs to work with the way people actually log.

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone".

 

I guess that makes me a very Bad Cacher then. These are some of my recent DNF logs:

• A terrain 4.5 cache hidden in a rock face where the limits of my climbing ability and the shortness of my arms meant I couldn't quite reach it.
• An AL bonus cache hidden in a tree but at the time I attempted it there was a family having a picnic right under it.
• Another AL bonus cache, this one a Bison tube on a fence, except there was a muggle sitting in his parked car right next to it.
• Yet another AL bonus cache, but on this one I was unable to get within the geofencing at one of its locations which was meant to be accessed from on board a train, and the only thing I could do was log a DNF on the bonus since you can't DNF an AL.
• A roadside cache in Newcastle where I made a cursory search but there was a muggle sitting in his car opposite and watching me so I gave up.
• A D3 traditional in a rocky gully, but it was raining at the time and there were places I couldn't look because of slippery rocks. I returned a few weeks later in dry weather and found it in one of those places.
• A coastal 11-stage Earthcache where I couldn't get to a few of the stages because of huge seas. I returned at a later date when the seas were calmer and was able to complete it.
• A cache hidden in a mangrove tree in wetlands. There'd been drought-breaking rain the week before and the mosquitoes were so thick they were going up my nose every time I inhaled. After a very cursory search I had to give up, but returned in drier and cooler weather and, covered with loads of repellent, was able to make the find.
• A cache next to a creek, but my GPSr was pointing me to the opposite side and, again after heavy rain, the creek was flowing strongly with lots of slippery rocks on its bed. On my next visit, in drier weather, I discovered (to the CO's amusement I'm sure) that I was on the right side of the creek after all and my GPSr had been leading me astray.

I've also had 78 DNFs logged on my own hides over the years and on only two occasions was the cache missing. The rest were all sorts of things similar to my own list above.

 

If I'm fairly sure the cache is missing, sure enough to want the CO to check on it, I'll log a "Cache might be missing" NM. I presume the website developers at HQ created that NM log type specifically for advising a CO that their cache might be missing:

The NM log it creates says "This geocacher reported that the cache might be missing", NOT "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon".

 

If I think a cache is missing and previous searches have also reached that conclusion and logged the might be missing NM with no response from the CO after a month or more, I'll log an NA to get the reviewer's attention. That's the way the system works around here and it seems to work pretty well most of the time.

 

Edit to add: I always provide lots of detail in my DNF logs explaining why my search was unsuccessful, so the CO will know not to rush out there with a replacement cache if it was just muggles, wet rocks, mozzies or simply my own ineptitude.

Edited July 19, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers.

No, *I'm* sorry. DNF means "didn't find". The fact that reviewers -- well, actually the automated scoring system the reviewers use -- misinterpret DNF doesn't change what it means to not find something.

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation.

Has this really happened to you? DNFs are fairly common in my area when a climb isn't attempted. If reviewers aren't reading the logs saying "DNF because I did not climb" and deactivating the cache anyway, I suggest that's the problem, not the people that couldn't find the cache for whatever reason posted a log saying they couldn't find the cache.

 

And anyone that skips a tree climb because of DNFs they didn't look at probably isn't ready for a tree climb, anyway.

[+Ragnemalm]

5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No, *I'm* sorry. DNF means "didn't find". The fact that reviewers -- well, actually the automated scoring system the reviewers use -- misinterpret DNF doesn't change what it means to not find something.

 

Has this really happened to you? DNFs are fairly common in my area when a climb isn't attempted. If reviewers aren't reading the logs saying "DNF because I did not climb" and deactivating the cache anyway, I suggest that's the problem, not the people that couldn't find the cache for whatever reason posted a log saying they couldn't find the cache.

 

And anyone that skips a tree climb because of DNFs they didn't look at probably isn't ready for a tree climb, anyway.

This is the problem: It says that it means "did not find" but in practice it is interpreted as "I think it is missing". So what it says does not stop it from meaning something else for users and reviewers.

 

In my area, it is generally accepted that DNF means that I need to check that it is still there. Some caches have been archived after just two DNFs (first deactivated, of course).

 

As a beginner, I logged DNF on a cache that I didn't dare searching for close to traffic, and got a complaint from the CO for this very reason: I had not searched enough to claim that it was gone!

 

However, I do know that practices can vary by area, so maybe DNF is just that in your area. Not in mine.

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers.

If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation.

Many log types are strange. "Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon". This has caused many fine caches to be archived just because the log book was a llittle damp. "Needs archived" means "a reviewer needs to have a look at this".

 

By the Help Center, Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

 

Your definition of NM isn't correct either...        

[+niraD]

12 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

As a beginner, I logged DNF on a cache that I didn't dare searching for close to traffic, and got a complaint from the CO for this very reason: I had not searched enough to claim that it was gone!

I'm so sorry that you were misled by such a %$#@! cache owner.

[+Ragnemalm]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm so sorry that you were misled by such a %$#@! cache owner.

I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.

[+Ragnemalm]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess that makes me a very Bad Cacher then. These are some of my recent DNF logs:

• A terrain 4.5 cache hidden in a rock face where the limits of my climbing ability and the shortness of my arms meant I couldn't quite reach it.
• An AL bonus cache hidden in a tree but at the time I attempted it there was a family having a picnic right under it.
• Another AL bonus cache, this one a Bison tube on a fence, except there was a muggle sitting in his parked car right next to it.
• Yet another AL bonus cache, but on this one I was unable to get within the geofencing at one of its locations which was meant to be accessed from on board a train, and the only thing I could do was log a DNF on the bonus since you can't DNF an AL.
• A roadside cache in Newcastle where I made a cursory search but there was a muggle sitting in his car opposite and watching me so I gave up.
• A D3 traditional in a rocky gully, but it was raining at the time and there were places I couldn't look because of slippery rocks. I returned a few weeks later in dry weather and found it in one of those places.
• A coastal 11-stage Earthcache where I couldn't get to a few of the stages because of huge seas. I returned at a later date when the seas were calmer and was able to complete it.
• A cache hidden in a mangrove tree in wetlands. There'd been drought-breaking rain the week before and the mosquitoes were so thick they were going up my nose every time I inhaled. After a very cursory search I had to give up, but returned in drier and cooler weather and, covered with loads of repellent, was able to make the find.
• A cache next to a creek, but my GPSr was pointing me to the opposite side and, again after heavy rain, the creek was flowing strongly with lots of slippery rocks on its bed. On my next visit, in drier weather, I discovered (to the CO's amusement I'm sure) that I was on the right side of the creek after all and my GPSr had been leading me astray.

I would never log DNF in any of these cases, on a cache that I can't search for or can't reach. These are all DNR's in my book, a "note" saying that I can't log it now for whatever reason, not that I couldn't find it.

 

So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.

[+lee737]

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

provide lots of detail in my DNF logs explaining why my search was unsuccessful

 

This is the key - explain what the cause of the DNF was, that way the CO knows if a check is needed, and a reviewer can take this into account too.

[+lee737]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.

Some areas seem pretty uptight! I can't imagine getting a message like that here....

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.

Some areas seem pretty uptight! I can't imagine getting a message like that here....

 

The only times I've received a message from a CO asking me to change a DNF log was when they were wanting me to change it to a find. I declined each time, instead eventually going back better prepared to complete the find myself.

[+Lynx Humble]

3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.

By the reviewer? Seems to be quicker than what is expected from them.

 

3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I would never log DNF in any of these cases, on a cache that I can't search for or can't reach. These are all DNR's in my book, a "note" saying that I can't log it now for whatever reason, not that I couldn't find it.

 

So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.

Yeah I also agree they should be Write Note. Its affecting negatively the CHS and other people decisions to hunt the cache by posting DNFs. Even the cache owner dashboard would show a blue face and a +1 in the DNFs collum even if there are no reason for the CO to do something.

[+GeoElmo6000]

I use DNF when I searched but Did Not Find.  If I approach a GZ and don't make an attempt (let's say my clothing is ill suited for the search, or it's getting dark when I arrive), I won't log a DNF because I Did Not Search (there's no DNS log for that ).  I may write a note in the latter case though.

 

There was a DNF Pride campaign a while back and joined in on that.  It was basically to promote "there's nothing wrong with not being able to find a cache" and so I occasionally update my profile page with my current DNF log count (125 as of today).  

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.

By the reviewer? Seems to be quicker than what is expected from them.

 

I was just going to say.  Who is doing the deactivation?  If the CO is, then that's their choice, likely decided based on the content of the DNFs, not their mere existence. And COs' interpretation of the DNF doesn't necessarily reflect what the DNF is in actuality intended to mean, which is that the person Did Not Find the cache. The why is up for interpretation by both the CO and the Reviewer, within the content of the DNF log (and possibly surrounding circumstances in the assumedly accurate log history).

 

If a reviewer deactivated a cache based solely on the existence of two DNFs (regardless of their content), especially if under what seems to be a standard month-ish sweep period, then yeah, the reviewers are on the very tight end of proactive, to say the least...

[+justintim1999]

On 4/27/2021 at 5:40 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

I think I'd classify the one who urinated in my cache as "bad". Even an inexperienced cacher ought to realise that's not how you sign the log.

Are you sure it was a fellow Geocacher?    Could it have been a muggle or an animal? 

 

As for me I still can't think of any bad cachers.  

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

On 4/28/2021 at 7:40 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

I think I'd classify the one who urinated in my cache as "bad". Even an inexperienced cacher ought to realise that's not how you sign the log.

Are you sure it was a fellow Geocacher?    Could it have been a muggle or an animal?

 

Unless animals can operate zippers, I'm pretty sure it wasn't an animal. A newbie PM cacher messaged me that they'd been looking for two hours for the cache and needed more hints, so I replied with a photo showing a prominent feature close to GZ. There was no reply, or either a found or DNF log, so I went around to check on the cache to make sure it was still good (which it was) and see if there was a signature in the logbook (there wasn't). A week later they messaged me again, wanting more and more hints. One of their messages included a photo of them (there were three, late teens or early twenties, one with a cigarette in his mouth) standing in front of that prominent feature and wanting to know whether they had to look left or right. I replied with "Down" and a few minutes later they said they'd found it. Not convinced they were likely to put it back correctly, I went back round there again the next day, only to find the stash note lying out on the ground and part of the novelty spider container poking out of its hiding place, with the logbook sitting on top of it and the pencil under it.

 

 

When I pulled the spider out and unzipped the pouch in its belly to put the logbook back in, I discovered it contained a pale yellow fluid. I suppose I should be glad they had the decency not to leave the logbook in it.

 

So I suppose it's possible a muggle might have done it between visits, but that seems pretty unlikely as the cache is well concealed and is somewhere muggles are unlikely to be wandering by (its terrain rating is 3.5 and takes quite a bit of bush-bashing and rock scrambling to reach). Anyway, their premium membership lapsed soon afterwards and they haven't made any finds since late last year so hopefully they've found another passtime to annoy.

Edited July 20, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

15 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Yeah I also agree they should be Write Note. Its affecting negatively the CHS and other people decisions to hunt the cache by posting DNFs. Even the cache owner dashboard would show a blue face and a +1 in the DNFs collum even if there are no reason for the CO to do something.

 

Is it acceptable to log a DNF on a high-difficulty (say D4 or D5) cache when you've been thwarted by the clever camo, even if the cache isn't missing? If so, how is that any different from being thwarted by some other aspect of the cache or its hiding place? In the case of the first example I gave, where the cache is in a cliff face, I paddled across the river, scrambled around the rocks, climbed up onto the ledge and searched in all the crevices I could safely reach but without success. It was only after the fact that I found out that the cache is a bit further along in a crevice I couldn't reach.

 

 

Why is my inability to find that cache not a valid DNF, just because the cache wasn't missing? It's much the same on the other DNFs I listed, where I was trying to find the cache but was thwarted by its location, environment or my own ineptitude.

 

As for the Cache Owner Dashboard, this one of mine is showing 13 in the DNFs column but has never gone missing:

 

Does that make it a bad cache, those DNFers bad cachers or me a bad CO? It's a tricky find, mainly because people see the large cave mentioned in the hint and, like the alleged urinator, search left and right but not down. I've rated it D2, which I think is reasonable given its DNF to find ratio, but I guess I have to work harder to get that ratio down to zero because all DNFs are inherently bad and make everyone think the cache is missing. Maybe I should put a spoiler photo on the cache page showing exactly where it's hidden, but that wouldn't work because no-one looks at the description on a traditional.

 

Back when the CHS was introduced, I expressed concerns about it transforming the DNF from being just an informational "I tried to find the cache today but didn't succeed" into a de-facto NM requiring action from the CO. At the time my concerns were largely dismissed, but it seems they've come to pass if unsuccessful cachers are now getting nastygrams from COs if they DNF a cache that isn't missing.

Edited July 21, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe I should put a spoiler photo on the cache page showing exactly where it's hidden, but that wouldn't work because no-one looks at the description on a traditional.

Most I would guess do look at the hint though, and would notice, "See spoiler photograph" there. although that won't help someone hunting with a GPS (or at least my model GPS).

 

I agree though, after a good search, it's a DNF, NOT a note. Note is for "Got to car park, saw the road flooded and turned around, so didn't get a chance to search." Or for a challenge, "Found and logged, but don't qualify yet."

 

Some people though will NOT log DNFs; they just WON'T !!    That is annoying.

 

I definitely log a DNF on a 1.5 or even a 2T, if I get there and even though I can see the cache, I can't reach it. I'm not tall, but there are many shorter than me. People should not consider their height when rating a cache, but the average height for the local population, and the average female height would be the better consideration.

[+justintim1999]

On 7/20/2021 at 6:29 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Unless animals can operate zippers, I'm pretty sure it wasn't an animal. A newbie PM cacher messaged me that they'd been looking for two hours for the cache and needed more hints, so I replied with a photo showing a prominent feature close to GZ. There was no reply, or either a found or DNF log, so I went around to check on the cache to make sure it was still good (which it was) and see if there was a signature in the logbook (there wasn't). A week later they messaged me again, wanting more and more hints. One of their messages included a photo of them (there were three, late teens or early twenties, one with a cigarette in his mouth) standing in front of that prominent feature and wanting to know whether they had to look left or right. I replied with "Down" and a few minutes later they said they'd found it. Not convinced they were likely to put it back correctly, I went back round there again the next day, only to find the stash note lying out on the ground and part of the novelty spider container poking out of its hiding place, with the logbook sitting on top of it and the pencil under it.

 

 

When I pulled the spider out and unzipped the pouch in its belly to put the logbook back in, I discovered it contained a pale yellow fluid. I suppose I should be glad they had the decency not to leave the logbook in it.

 

So I suppose it's possible a muggle might have done it between visits, but that seems pretty unlikely as the cache is well concealed and is somewhere muggles are unlikely to be wandering by (its terrain rating is 3.5 and takes quite a bit of bush-bashing and rock scrambling to reach). Anyway, their premium membership lapsed soon afterwards and they haven't made any finds since late last year so hopefully they've found another passtime to annoy.

Was the cache well concealed after this find?   Did you reach out and ask them about it? 

 

If they were truly bad cachers I'd bet you'd notice a few NM logs after some of their other finds.   Seems odd to go through all that trouble to find a cache just to vandalize it.      I tend not to jump to conclusions on things like this but to be honest I've never had something like this happen to me.   Most of what I see looks like inexperience or simple mistakes.     I think most people who understand the game have more respect than that......but I'm sure there are exceptions.       

[+barefootjeff]

38 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If they were truly bad cachers I'd bet you'd notice a few NM logs after some of their other finds.   Seems odd to go through all that trouble to find a cache just to vandalize it.      I tend not to jump to conclusions on things like this but to be honest I've never had something like this happen to me.   Most of what I see looks like inexperience or simple mistakes.     I think most people who understand the game have more respect than that......but I'm sure there are exceptions.    

 

To the best of my knowledge, my cache was the only one affected but they didn't find many caches before they lost interest and most of the others were urban hides where doing that sort of thing would likely draw undue attention. There were three in the photo but only one logged a find so perhaps one of the muggle mates went back after the cacher had moved on. Also another local cacher recognised one of the three as someone he knew from his pre-caching muggle days so I suspect there might be more to this than I'm privy to and which I really don't want to become embroiled in.

[+justintim1999]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

To the best of my knowledge, my cache was the only one affected but they didn't find many caches before they lost interest and most of the others were urban hides where doing that sort of thing would likely draw undue attention. There were three in the photo but only one logged a find so perhaps one of the muggle mates went back after the cacher had moved on. Also another local cacher recognised one of the three as someone he knew from his pre-caching muggle days so I suspect there might be more to this than I'm privy to and which I really don't want to become embroiled in.

I feel ya.    You can except an animal or mother nature destroying one of your caches but I never understood why a reasoning brain would think doing something like that was somehow a good thing.  Just picture your cache on fire and Yogi Bear coming along to put it out.   

[+Aprilscherzen]

On 7/19/2021 at 6:21 PM, Ragnemalm said:

 

In my area, it is generally accepted that DNF means that I need to check that it is still there. Some caches have been archived after just two DNFs (first deactivated, of course).

 

 Do you have an example for this?

[+kunarion]

9 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 Do you have an example for this?

 

Here's an example of an unattended cache that was archived after I made a DNF log:

https://coord.info/GC7TNW0

 

I made a total of two DNFs, and even subsequently logged a Find.  But caches that get archived this way tend to need to be archived.  That is, although my log seems to trigger it sometimes, there are more serious issues than just a log.  Yeah, as Ragnemalm said, the cache is next required to have some positive CO intervention or it's gone.  But a Cache Owner log that made any effort at all to address the issues would have kept the cache alive for at least a little while.

 

If you place a cache, you must proactively fix issues, and be sure it's a cache you love to check on a lot, and do so regularly.  Otherwise, you're a Bad Cacher.  

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by kunarion

[+Ragnemalm]

9 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 Do you have an example for this?

I do (more than one) but I can't post it here without pointing out specific COs and reviewers, and I don't think that is OK.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, kunarion said:

If you place a cache, you must proactively fix issues, and be sure it's a cache you love to check on a lot, and do so regularly.  Otherwise, you're a Bad Cacher.  

 

I try to place my caches in places I enjoy visiting, especially if there's a good fish and chip shop nearby. The other thing is to pick containers, logbooks and hiding places that will minimise any need for maintenance. This one, which I placed just over five years ago, is a themed T4 in a remote location that I try to get to at least once a year, but to date the only problem it's had has been a broken pencil:

 

 

Its hiding place is in under a ledge where it's well protected from sun and rain, and where it is there's little risk of muggles stumbling upon it.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I try to place my caches in places I enjoy visiting, especially if there's a good fish and chip shop nearby.

I appreciate caches with cafes nearby, where I can stop for coffee. One of my multicaches (purposefully) passes by suburban shops (my local shops), where there 2.5 cafes (.5 because one of the cafes is only open in the daytime on Saturday mornings. Otherwise, it's open 21:00 to 6:00.) There are also 3 restaurants, but they are not open always in the daytime, but might be. There is also a bakery and a supermarket for food too. Although the knives and fork attribute is available, I had to remove my comment that it was possible to stop for a coffee, as that's commercial. When I cache, that's information I WANT to know. I ended up putting, passes the local shops, and left that up to the imagination of the cacher, who should realise that many local shops have at least one café.

[+barefootjeff]

34 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I appreciate caches with cafes nearby, where I can stop for coffee. One of my multicaches (purposefully) passes by suburban shops (my local shops), where there 2.5 cafes (.5 because one of the cafes is only open in the daytime on Saturday mornings. Otherwise, it's open 21:00 to 6:00.) There are also 3 restaurants, but they are not open always in the daytime, but might be. There is also a bakery and a supermarket for food too. Although the knives and fork attribute is available, I had to remove my comment that it was possible to stop for a coffee, as that's commercial. When I cache, that's information I WANT to know. I ended up putting, passes the local shops, and left that up to the imagination of the cacher, who should realise that many local shops have at least one café.

 

My caching highlights:

 

[+Goldenwattle]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My caching highlights:

 

I like the salad...

The rest is too much for me for lunch . Although, with one or two other people to share it, it might be okay.

[+kunarion]

26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My caching highlights:

 

That looks great!  
Based on these recent posts, I’m gonna add pictures of nice lunches near caches, in logs when I eat out.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

14 hours ago, kunarion said:

Here's an example of an unattended cache that was archived after I made a DNF log:

https://coord.info/GC7TNW0

 

Surely we can all recognize this as either an error or something going on behind the scenes. I've never seen anything like it, so I don't think is an example of standard practice. Is it?

[Keystone]

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

14 hours ago, kunarion said:

Here's an example of an unattended cache that was archived after I made a DNF log:

https://coord.info/GC7TNW0

 

Surely we can all recognize this as either an error or something going on behind the scenes. I've never seen anything like it, so I don't think is an example of standard practice. Is it?

 

The exact sequence of events is as follows:

 

1. Kunarion logged a DNF on 10/30.

2. Kunarion logged a DNF on 10/31.  This log was later deleted.

3. The two DNF's in rapid succession on a cache rated 1.5 stars for difficulty caused the Cache Health Score to go below the minimum threshold on 10/31.

4. An automated cache health notification email was sent to the cache owner on 11/3.

5. The cache health score and the resulting email notification caused the cache to get on the list that was available to reviewers at the time.  The local reviewer disabled the cache on 11/4.

6.  The cache was then found by several geocachers, but because it was disabled and the owner took no action, the local reviewer archived the cache page.

 

There is a new and better system in place today that builds in more of a time delay before the Reviewer is alerted to take action on caches after the automated email is sent.

 

[Keystone]

As a reminder, this thread is about "bad cachers," not "bad health score algorithm results" or "good lunches."  Let's remain on topic.  Thanks!

[+Aprilscherzen]

21 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I do (more than one) but I can't post it here without pointing out specific COs and reviewers, and I don't think that is OK.

I see.  Fortunately it seems not to be the case in whole Sweden. I DNFed several caches there and all are still active.

 

[+dprovan]

10 hours ago, Keystone said:

The local reviewer disabled the cache on 11/4.

So this was a mistake, right? Obviously the reviewer didn't look at the log or he would have seen that the health score was wrong. Kunarion wasn't a bad cacher for posting his perfectly legitimate DNF that implied nothing about the cache being in trouble. This cache was brought up to make the implication is that Kunarion caused the cache to be archived, but your timeline makes it clear that problem was elsewhere.

[Keystone]

No, it wasn't a mistake.

Kunarion is not a bad cacher.

The retired Georgia Reviewer is not a bad cacher.

[+lee737]

15 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

The exact sequence of events is as follows:

 

1. Kunarion logged a DNF on 10/30.

2. Kunarion logged a DNF on 10/31.  This log was later deleted.

3. The two DNF's in rapid succession on a cache rated 1.5 stars for difficulty caused the Cache Health Score to go below the minimum threshold on 10/31.

4. An automated cache health notification email was sent to the cache owner on 11/3.

5. The cache health score and the resulting email notification caused the cache to get on the list that was available to reviewers at the time.  The local reviewer disabled the cache on 11/4.

6.  The cache was then found by several geocachers, but because it was disabled and the owner took no action, the local reviewer archived the cache page.

 

There is a new and better system in place today that builds in more of a time delay before the Reviewer is alerted to take action on caches after the automated email is sent.

 

2 DNFs and its disabled within a week.... that doesn't happen here, ever..... I wonder if our CHS machine is turned on or not??

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

2 DNFs and its disabled within a week.... that doesn't happen here, ever..... I wonder if our CHS machine is turned on or not??

 

Please re-read my post; the answer to your question is contained within it.

[+SwineFlew]

On 4/25/2021 at 12:47 AM, CommunistOnions said:

Hello. I was just wondering what makes a cacher bad in a community. Full stop, just that.

People that complain about other cachers.