Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"

[+Ragnemalm]

Isn't it annoying with official blog posts that just isn't accurate? This blog post is one of them, IMHO.

 

The blog encourages DNFs any time you didn't find a cache, regardless of what the cache is. I quote:

 

"Maybe they think they didn’t spend enough time looking, or they only log a DNF if they feel certain the cache isn’t there."

 

This is exactly how you should think! If you didn't find a D4 after just searching a short time, a DNF is just harmful because:

 

"Some fear their DNF log will be the reason for a cache’s archival (it won’t)."

 

Yes, it will! It definitely will! I have seen caches archived by reviewers after as little as two DNFs (that is warning + archive), and we are talking about pretty hard caches.

 

"Not surprisingly, countries with more engaged cache owners have lower actual DNF rates on caches."

 

Yes, but if you make tough caches, you get both DNFs on caches that are there, as well as the equally annoying "found it" by people who saw the cache but didn't sign it because they could not reach it.

 

I strictly avoid DNF and NM on very old caches where the CO has quit. I don't want a 20 year old cache to be archived just becacuse the log book is a bit damp or because the locaction has gotten a bit harder, or it gets DNFs by people who didn't search well. I rather, if needed, try to do "non-owner maintenance" to keep it alive. Sadly, if such maintenance counts is totally up to the reviewer and AFAIK it doesn't raise the health score and the DNF lowers it.

 

So, my point is that things are not as simple as this blog says.

[+Max and 99]

I had a little trouble understanding how they arrived at the conclusions in the blog post, liked the true DNF rate:

• Actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs, with some countries showing true DNF rates near or above 20 percent (compared with 6–8 percent in online logs).

Edited August 24, 2023 by Max and 99

[+Goldenwattle]

I make an exception for old and remote caches, as usually these are maintained by locals or travellers. Plus they can't or are unlikely to be replaced.  For most of the others you SHOULD most definitely log that DNF when you have searched and can't find it. Not only does it indicate that the cache might be missing, but if it's there and a cache is getting more DNFs than its rating indicates it should be getting, it is a guide for the CO to increase the rating, and in those cases where the CO is too pig minded to do that and give a realistic cache rating, at least all the DNFs show other geocachers the cache is not really say a 1.5D as it is marked. High rated caches are likely to get more DNFs, which is expected, as they are harder to find.

So I strongly disagree with much of what was written. PLEASE log those DNFs.

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

This is exactly how you should think! If you didn't find a D4 after just searching a short time, a DNF is just harmful because:

Not at all harmful. They are difficult caches and lots of DNFs are expected. If a CO doesn't want lots of DNFs, only make easy to find caches.

 

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

I have seen caches archived by reviewers after as little as two DNFs (that is warning + archive), and we are talking about pretty hard caches.

Please give examples to back up this claim, where the normal month warning is not given, not where the CO didn't respond or there has been a long history of non-response from the CO. I haven't seen that.

 

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Yes, but if you make tough caches, you get both DNFs on caches that are there, as well as the equally annoying "found it" by people who saw the cache but didn't sign it because they could not reach it.

They are tough caches, so of course there will be DNFs. It should be expected. See previous comments. Check the log and delete those who didn't sign the log. It's the job of COs to check the log.

 

Make those DNFs. That's being considerate and helpful for the CO, indicating there might be a problem with either the cache or the rating. One DNF doesn't necessarily mean much, but it does when the numbers start to build up (and that won't happen if too many people are too scared to log DNFs), and it also depends who made the DNF; a beginner, or an experienced player. I remember one cache I put a DNF on. It hadn't had a log for six months. Based on previous logging numbers going back years, there should have been 20 to 30 logs in that time, so that meant there 20 to 30 unlogged DNFs during that time. Possibly all too nervous to make the first DNF. I said now the first DNF is made there will likely be more. The next DNF appeared two days later. The CO checked, and thanked me for the DNF, because it really was missing. They hadn't realised. Same with one of my caches. I did my normal cache check and found it missing. I then checked and there had been no logs for months. I also didn't know it was missing. LOG those DNFs. No one with think you are inadequate just because you couldn't find it. But they might think you were spinless for not logging a DNF. Someone has to make the first DNF. It does no good everyone thinking no other DNFs, so it must mean just that they couldn't find it. If it's still there someone else will likely find it and their log will cancel out the DNF. But if it's not there how will the CO know if no DNFs?

 

 Besides, some COs like me, might contact you and ask if you would like an extra hint. I regularly offer extra help. However, no DNF, no help! (As one cacher who asked for help but still refused to make a DNF found out.)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Viajero Perdido]

I've seen a reviewer send a cache owner up a full-size mountain after a single DNF.  And didn't we just read about another similar example in these forums?

 

DNF carefully.  If marketing says one thing and reviewers another...

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I've seen a reviewer send a cache owner up a full-size mountain after a single DNF.  And didn't we just read about another similar example in these forums?

 

DNF carefully.  If marketing says one thing and reviewers another...

This discussion?

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/392907-chs-health-reviewer-attention/

[+barefootjeff]

38 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Isn't it annoying with official blog posts that just isn't accurate? This blog post is one of them, IMHO.

 

The blog encourages DNFs any time you didn't find a cache, regardless of what the cache is. I quote:

 

"Maybe they think they didn’t spend enough time looking, or they only log a DNF if they feel certain the cache isn’t there."

 

This is exactly how you should think! If you didn't find a D4 after just searching a short time, a DNF is just harmful because:

 

"Some fear their DNF log will be the reason for a cache’s archival (it won’t)."

 

Yes, it will! It definitely will! I have seen caches archived by reviewers after as little as two DNFs (that is warning + archive), and we are talking about pretty hard caches.

 

"Not surprisingly, countries with more engaged cache owners have lower actual DNF rates on caches."

 

Yes, but if you make tough caches, you get both DNFs on caches that are there, as well as the equally annoying "found it" by people who saw the cache but didn't sign it because they could not reach it.

 

I guess we've come full circle. The DNF-counting CHS was introduced because people were reluctant to log NMs on caches that might be missing, but now people are reluctant to (or being told not to) log DNFs on caches that aren't necessarily missing.

 

In another thread I recently detailed the 11 DNFs I've logged this year.

• 4 were caches I simply didn't find on my first attempt but have gone back since and found them.
• 2 I couldn't find but others have since found them.
• 2 were ones where I was defeated by the terrain, one a mountain climb where we took a wrong turn and I baulked at a rock face and the other a tree climb where I didn't think the tree would support me. Both caches are fine.
• 1 was checked by the CO, confirmed to be missing and replaced.
• 1 has since been disabled by the reviewer.
• 1 hasn't had any logs since my DNF so I don't know whether there's a problem or it was just me doing a Blind Freddy.

So of the eleven, one was definitely missing (replaced by the CO), one is likely missing (disabled by the reviewer) and one still in limbo. The rest were fine, I just failed in my attempt to get my name in the logbook, and either I've gone back and found them on my second attempt or someone else has logged a find since.

 

If only one of my DNFs was valid (the one where the CO confirmed the cache was missing and replaced it), and maybe the one that's been disabled by the reviewer since there were several previous DNFs and the last find was in 2019, then I guess I should apologise to the COs for maligning their caches. Maybe the Help Centre needs to be updated to make the usage of DNF logs clearer, or maybe the log itself needs to be renamed "Cache Is Missing" and do away with the "Cache might be missing" NM log.

 

[+barefootjeff]

This is a DNF that was recently logged on one of my multis:

 

 

Is that a valid DNF? I think it is because the logger had been trying to find the cache but didn't succeed in getting her name in the logbook. The DNF also puts a blue frowny on her map as a reminder to come back and try again sometime. I would hope that, if a DNF like this resulted in a CHS ping, the reviewer would at least read the log before deciding whether to take further action.

 

More problematic is this one though, also on one of my multis:

 

 

I messaged the logger to try to find out more information and they said they'd gotten to WP6 but then decided they weren't adequately dressed to head off-trail into the scrub to get to GZ.

 

DNF logs can cover a broad spectrum of scenarios so something more than just "DNF" is needed to be helpful to the CO, other searchers and the reviewers.

Edited August 24, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

"Maybe they think they didn’t spend enough time looking, or they only log a DNF if they feel certain the cache isn’t there."

 

This is exactly how you should think! If you didn't find a D4 after just searching a short time, a DNF is just harmful because:

 

"Some fear their DNF log will be the reason for a cache’s archival (it won’t)."

 

Yes, it will! It definitely will! I have seen caches archived by reviewers after as little as two DNFs (that is warning + archive), and we are talking about pretty hard caches.

When I search for a cache, and don't find it, I log a DNF. No exceptions! In the log, I describe as detailed as possible w/o giving blatant spoilers, where and how I searched (e.g. "found two objects matching the hint, one of them seemed to be an obvious hiding place, but no luck", or "searched the area thoroughly for 30 minutes", or "gave up after only 5 minutes").

 

If my DNF triggers a CHS warning, so be it. I'm sorry, but a trigger-happy CHS algorithm is not my fault, and I won't start working around that problem by leaving gaps in my own caching history. I want to know at a glance, how many DNFs I have and for which caches it happened. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the automatic CHS-triggered warning contains a phrase saying that if the CO has good reasons to believe that the cache is not actually missing, they should post a log saying so, and re-enable the cache. So, when a cache is archived because of the CHS, it's always because the CO didn't react.

 

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I strictly avoid DNF and NM on very old caches where the CO has quit. I don't want a 20 year old cache to be archived just becacuse the log book is a bit damp or because the locaction has gotten a bit harder, or it gets DNFs by people who didn't search well. I rather, if needed, try to do "non-owner maintenance" to keep it alive. Sadly, if such maintenance counts is totally up to the reviewer and AFAIK it doesn't raise the health score and the DNF lowers it.

Do as you see fit, but I won't follow. I don't care, if a cache is 20 years or 20 minutes old - if I don't find it, it's a DNF. Again, in my experience these caches only get archived if they are really unsolvable problems - otherwise, "community maintenance" like the occasional new log or even new container keeps the listing alive. And if that doesn't happen, and the cache devolves into a soggy, moldy, gross nightmare, then it should be archived.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I had a little trouble understanding how they arrived at the conclusions in the blog post, liked the true DNF rate:

• Actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs, with some countries showing true DNF rates near or above 20 percent (compared with 6–8 percent in online logs).

That's a good question. I could imagine that you can arrive at a lower-bound estimate for the number of unlogged DNFs by manually browsing through the logs of selected caches, and looking for:

• Find logs, which explicitly say they didn't actually find the cache
• Find logs saying things like "In the nth attempt, I finally found it", when there are no previous DNFs by the same cacher (something which is very common in my home area)

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

That's a good question. I could imagine that you can arrive at a lower-bound estimate for the number of unlogged DNFs by manually browsing through the logs of selected caches, and looking for:

• Find logs, which explicitly say they didn't actually find the cache
• Find logs saying things like "In the nth attempt, I finally found it", when there are no previous DNFs by the same cacher (something which is very common in my home area)

I have seen logs saying they have searched (up to) six times and finally found the cache. I have checked and not one DNF from those people. Not great for their caching reputation. I have logged (I think) up to four DNFs for a cache before I have finally found it. If I was the CO I would have contacted me before that to give extra assistance, as one CO kindly did recently for my 4th logged DNF. However, the cache was actually missing this time, as the area has been completely cleared of vegetation, including grass, leaving only bare dirt, which the CO didn't know about. I probably should have done a NM for that one, after my DNF, but the active CO now knows the situation.

For some caches I suspect there are more unlogged DNFs than finds.

[+Ragnemalm]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is a DNF that was recently logged on one of my multis:

 

 

Is that a valid DNF? I think it is because the logger had been trying to find the cache but didn't succeed in getting her name in the logbook. The DNF also puts a blue frowny on her map as a reminder to come back and try again sometime. I would hope that, if a DNF like this resulted in a CHS ping, the reviewer would at least read the log before deciding whether to take further action.

 

More problematic is this one though, also on one of my multis:

 

 

I messaged the logger to try to find out more information and they said they'd gotten to WP6 but then decided they weren't adequately dressed to head off-trail into the scrub to get to GZ.

 

DNF logs can cover a broad spectrum of scenarios so something more than just "DNF" is needed to be helpful to the CO, other searchers and the reviewers.

I think both your cases are good examples of bad DNFs. The first is "didn't really search - DNF", the other is "didn't find"- what? I got a DNF of a multi I have with four stages and final. I messaged the person logging DNF for some detail, no response.

 

There is a broad spectrum, and I include cases in that spectrum where the DNF really isn't called for.

 

But I must say that there is definitely the opposite case, especially "found it" when you didn't find it. I had one just a few days ago. Found my birdhouse, "there was no log in it", wrote a signature on the outside of the birdhouse! I definitely would have preferred a DNF there. Yes, there was a log, and I had to take down the birdhouse to paint over the incorrect log. On the positive side, it could use the paint.

[+Goldenwattle]

I checked a cache I know that gets DNFs. I had one DNF (logged) before I found it. The cache is an oldish one, so I only checked back to 2019. Of those that mentioned having at least one DNF before, only half had logged a DNF, but  none logged more than one DNF, even though their logs indicated there were several DNFs.

One DNF log, but words that indicate it was not only one DNF.

 

"This cache has eluded me in the past whenever I’ve passed through"

 

"This cache has plagued us for many years. We usually stop here for a latte nearby, a toilet break, and too look for a cache."

 

"This cache has been our nemesis for many many years. ....have checked it both on the way to and from holidays each year."

 

DNFs are hugely under logged.

[+Ragnemalm]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I had a little trouble understanding how they arrived at the conclusions in the blog post, liked the true DNF rate:

• Actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs, with some countries showing true DNF rates near or above 20 percent (compared with 6–8 percent in online logs).

Absolutely. What does this mean? What are the "actual DNF rates"? Is someone counting DNF-style "note", or "found it" that should be DNF? Sounds like an impossible job.

[+fizzymagic]

3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I had a little trouble understanding how they arrived at the conclusions in the blog post, liked the true DNF rate:

• Actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs, with some countries showing true DNF rates near or above 20 percent (compared with 6–8 percent in online logs).

 

It was a pretty well-designed experiment.  Each participant was assigned 25 caches to find and report on the condition, etc.  Participants had over a month to find all of the caches.  I personally went back multiple times to sites at which I could not find the cache, and even contacted the cache owner to inquire about the cache's status.  I expect that  others did, as well. The caches I marked as missing were truly missing.  And not one had a DNF on it!

 

From that random sample of caches and the logs of the participants in the study, one can statistically estimate the overall rate of missing caches.  I would use slightly different terminology than the video did, as I would say that (assuming the other participants worked as hard as I did to find the caches) the estimated rate of missing or unfindable caches is considerably higher than the DNF rate.  In my case it was 3 out of 25 that were definitely missing.  So by encouraging us to log DNFs, HQ is saying that the rate of missing caches is so high that the examples being used in this thread are a small problem in comparison.  And, from my own experience, I agree.  Yes, I have DNFed caches that turned out to be there, but, far more often, my DNFs reflect truly missing cache containers.

 

I know that the others in the thread believe that DNFs are over- not under-reported, but an experiment to measure the effect was performed and the results were clear.  You're wrong.

Edited August 24, 2023 by fizzymagic

[+Ragnemalm]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

DNFs are hugely under logged.

I'd say they are both under-logged and over-logged. There are cases they are used when they shouldn't, and cases where they should. It is a pretty complex problem.

[+Goldenwattle]

13 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

I'd say they are both under-logged and over-logged. There are cases they are used when they shouldn't, and cases where they should. It is a pretty complex problem.

I have never experienced over-logged. Doesn't happen. A DNF when the cache is still there is not over logged. It means the person couldn't find it; that's all.

[+barefootjeff]

43 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

The caches I marked as missing were truly missing.  And not one had a DNF on it!

 

Perhaps no-one went looking for them in the time between when they disappeared and your check.

 

45 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Yes, I have DNFed caches that turned out to be there, but, far more often, my DNFs reflect truly missing cache containers.

 

My own experience is the opposite. On something like 90% of the DNFs I've logged the caches weren't missing, I just couldn't find them or get my name in the log on that attempt. Often I've been able to convert that DNF to a find on my second attempt when I've gone back better prepared. Maybe the caches here are more challenging or maybe I'm just particularly bad at seeing the obvious, probably the latter because often I'm the only one to DNF a cache.

 

It's a similar stat on my hides. Across my 47 active hides (excluding the three I adopted as they have past history), there have been 59 DNFs logged but only one turned out to be a missing cache (that itself is an interesting story as I found the missing cache rehidden some 50 metres from GZ a month after I'd archived it and got the reviewer to unarchive it for me). Those DNF logs tell a wide variety of tales, from just looking in the wrong place to snakes blocking the trail, swarms of blood-thirsty mosquitoes, approaching storms and departing trains and ferries.

 

With the CHS trying to be a one-size-fits-all predictor of missing caches based on patterns of DNF logs, it's perhaps not surprising that it often under-reports or over-reports.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

4 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Yes, I have DNFed caches that turned out to be there, but, far more often, my DNFs reflect truly missing cache containers.

 

My own experience is the opposite. On something like 90% of the DNFs I've logged the caches weren't missing, I just couldn't find them or get my name in the log on that attempt.

 

There are multiple factors as to whether a person's DNF is on a missing cache or not, from difficulty to experience to environment... my educated guess is my rate is likely very similar to fizzymagic. But my local area gets a lot of cache cycling, archives and republishes, due to caches going missing or getting damaged. And I like to think I have a lot of experience lending to the idea that if I DNF, it most likely means I would have found it if it were there and it actually is missing. I do occasionally check back on my DNFs and more often than not they're followed by more DNFs, and an owner checkup or an archival - moreso than a Find.

 

I have seen a few followup finders call me out about the DNF, surprised that I didn't find it when they did so easily (it stings)   But - this also then goes back to whether something happened between my FND and the next log, that wasn't logged... some COs don't want to post their maintenance if it wasn't prompted by a request for maintenance, for fear that it also degrades the appearance of the cache listing, so some caches may get 'quietly' fixed up; or perhaps due to secret proxy/community maintenance.  But these exceptions are so relatively rare that I highly doubt they'd affect the reasonable outcome of this research; maybe add to a small margin for error.

[+cerberus1]

When the other 2/3rds was a FTF monster, we'd go to areas we could see were searched thoroughly (brush with no leaves, grass trampled, assorted footprints in all directions...). No DNFs. We chalked it up to arrogance/pride, that some thought it "looked bad" that they couldn't find it.

Often those people would leave a NM without a DNF, cluing us in with their, "it must be missing if I can't find it..." thinking.

Saturday, I went to a familiar area and DNF both caches there.  Stopped for one at an ice cream stand for IGD.  What low D/T are good for IMO.

Yesterday I went back to CITO the area and found one in a spot not jiving with logs, and only a tether for the other.

Edited August 24, 2023 by cerberus1
all...I don't know anyone named Al...

[+L0ne.R]

8 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I've seen a reviewer send a cache owner up a full-size mountain after a single DNF.  And didn't we just read about another similar example in these forums?

 

DNF carefully.  If marketing says one thing and reviewers another...

 

Quote

The cache was found only a single time in late 2016.  The next attempt on a find wasn't until late 2018, a full two years later and the attempt was made in the winter, in Colorado.  In the (incorrect) DNF log, the cacher clearly stated that they could not make it to GZ due to all the snow.  Four years later, the next log that pops up is a reviewer note that cache may need attention (again, note comes up in the winter in Colorado). 

 

So why didn't the cache owner visit when there was no snow on the ground,  any time between 2016 and 2020? Seems like they placed it in a spot they did not enjoy going back to (you'd think the cache would be a nice excuse to go back occasionally if they placed it in a nice location). It seems like they never intended to go back.  Did they ever go back? Was the cache container still there?

Edited August 24, 2023 by L0ne.R

[+fuzziebear3]

I consider DNF to be part of the cache's history, and part of my history. 

 

In general, I do log them.  But there are few circumstances where I might not:

 

1.)  A known high difficulty hide, that is expected to be hard and take multiple attempts.  I will log the first attempt.  I may make other intermediate attempts, but may not log all of them.   When I finally find it eventually, I will probably say I looked here X times over the last XXXX, so you can see I had more.  Again, multiple DNF's from me are not really adding anything to the story.  (And are somehow feeding a sadistic cache owner's ego)

2.)  When caching with a group, I might not, if other members of the group did already log a DNF.   Three or more DNF's from one search effort isn't really needed, and doesn't add information.  However, I would prefer that I am do log the DNF there, because I like to see my frownies when I look on the map and decide if I want to go look again.

 

As for the CHS, well that is an algorithm, and if it gets triggered, so be it.  It is part of cache ownership to maintain your caches.  If there are several DNFs/more than should be expected, then it probably really does need a check and the cache owner is responsible to do that.

 

-- Now as for Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived, those are entirely different discussions.  I'm am VERY reluctant to log a NA, and fairly reluctant to log a NM.  I do get frustrated by getting NA and NM logs when really a DNF is the appropriate log type.  Let me know you didn't find it, I can take it from there.

 

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

A D4 cache that doesn't have more DNFs than Finds isn't really a D4 cache.

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I consider DNF to be part of the cache's history, and part of my history. 

 

In general, I do log them.  But there are few circumstances where I might not:

 

1.)  A known high difficulty hide, that is expected to be hard and take multiple attempts.  I will log the first attempt.  I may make other intermediate attempts, but may not log all of them.   When I finally find it eventually, I will probably say I looked here X times over the last XXXX, so you can see I had more.  Again, multiple DNF's from me are not really adding anything to the story.  (And are somehow feeding a sadistic cache owner's ego)

2.)  When caching with a group, I might not, if other members of the group did already log a DNF.   Three or more DNF's from one search effort isn't really needed, and doesn't add information.  However, I would prefer that I am do log the DNF there, because I like to see my frownies when I look on the map and decide if I want to go look again.

 

As for the CHS, well that is an algorithm, and if it gets triggered, so be it.  It is part of cache ownership to maintain your caches.  If there are several DNFs/more than should be expected, then it probably really does need a check and the cache owner is responsible to do that.

 

-- Now as for Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived, those are entirely different discussions.  I'm am VERY reluctant to log a NA, and fairly reluctant to log a NM.  I do get frustrated by getting NA and NM logs when really a DNF is the appropriate log type.  Let me know you didn't find it, I can take it from there.

 

 

 

This ^^^^^ !!

 

Yesterday, three of us went out.  We sought puzzles, and a letterbox in particular for this month's wheel challenge, and some troublesome traditionals that one of the group had DNF'd and wanted us to help try to find.  There were 2 caches we did not find; one had already been logged by one of our group as a DNF, subsequently found, and logged again as a DNF by me since we did not find it and were fairly sure it was missing.  The other was logged by one of the group (not me) as a DNF; she said she had looked before but not logged it, and 3 of us couldn't find it so this time she logged it.  I did not, because I felt it would be redundant.  She mentioned all 3 of us in her log...generally though, I like to log the DNF if I'm with others for my caching record, and most are willing to let me do that.

 

I will typically give a reason for my DNF - how the search went, how much time we spent, the conditions at GZ that made me think it's missing - the CO knows how and what objects I searched and sometimes responds to tell me I was way off in my thinking, or to go check and replace a missing container.  I like to get helpful info on DNF's on my caches too, and I can get a feel for if it is really missing.  I also take into consideration how many finds the DNF'er has - experience definitely makes a difference in finding different hide styles...

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I'm am VERY reluctant to log a NA, and fairly reluctant to log a NM.  I do get frustrated by getting NA and NM logs when really a DNF is the appropriate log type.  Let me know you didn't find it, I can take it from there.

I log a NM after a number of DNFs. How many depends on the cache rating. If COs get upset from a NM on a 1D or 1.5T after say only 3 DNFs from experienced players, they should up the difficulty rating, as no low rating if the cache is there should get lots of DNFs. If it's a high rated cache, I would need many more then three DNFs before I would log a NM, unless it was obvious there is no cache, such as if the area has recently been cleared and it's now a patch of dirt.

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I do get frustrated by getting NA and NM logs when really a DNF is the appropriate log type.  Let me know you didn't find it, I can take it from there.

 

I'm the opposite, if someone would like me to check on a cache, for whatever reason, I'd much prefer them to log an NM, particularly as the system is set up to flag outstanding NMs so they can't be easily overlooked or forgotten. I treat finds and DNFs as informational logs, telling of the searcher's experiences, not as calls for action. Even if their NM turns out to be a false alarm (which is great as I don't have to fix anything), I'd still rather they logged that than expect me to second-guess from a DNF log.

[+Goldenwattle]

26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

treat finds and DNFs as informational logs

That's what they are; that the person couldn't find the cache. However when several appear it's time to check the cache. Actually after several DNFs (how many depends on the D rating)  the next person, if they also log a DNF, should also log a NM.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's what they are; that the person couldn't find the cache. However when several appear it's time to check the cache. Actually after several DNFs (how many depends on the D rating)  the next person, if they also log a DNF, should also log a NM.

 

That depends on what's written in those DNF logs, which is why it's important to say more than just "DNF" or "Couldn't find it" in them. Were the searchers put off by muggles in the vicinity, bad weather, swooping magpies or whatever? There are lots of ways to not find a cache, it being missing is just one of them and, at least on the sort of caches I search for and hide, just about the least likely.

Edited August 25, 2023 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+Goldenwattle]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That depends on what's written in those DNF logs, which is why it's important to say more than just "DNF" or "Couldn't find it" in them. Were the searchers put off by muggles in the vicinity, bad weather, swooping magpies or whatever? There are lots of ways to not find a cache, it being missing is just one of them and, at least on the sort of caches I search for and hide, just about the least likely.

If I can't get to the cache, such as the road/path etc. is flooded, etc, I might just write a note. Naturally it would depend what is written in the DNF logs.

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If I can't get to the cache, such as the road/path etc. is flooded, etc, I might just write a note. Naturally it would depend what is written in the DNF logs.

 

There's a cache, Big Sister (GC1458J) on the Mid North Coast, which I drove up to with a group of caching friends earlier in the year. On the way up the mountain we took a wrong turn, having been misled by some mischievous painted arrows, and came to an almost vertical rock face. The others managed to get up but, with my clapped out sense of balance, I opted out and instead sat on a rock to have lunch while they completed the climb and got to the cache. For me that was a DNF since my whole intention of driving all that way and starting the climb was to find the cache, but I made the circumstances of my failure clear in my log:

 

I want that to be a blue frowny on my map, to remind me that I have unfinished business with that mountain. I almost got the chance a few weeks ago when we were camping at Diamond Head, with a couple of us intending the do the climb via the correct route on the way home, but the weather turned against us before we'd even left the motorway. For that attempt, my companion rightly posted a WN but since he mentioned me in it there seemed little point in me posting a duplicate WN.

 

I guess my rule of thumb is that if I've parked the car and started walking (or paddling) with my GPSr turned on, with the intention of getting my name in the logbook by the time I get back, but I'm defeated by some aspect of the cache, be that its camo, the terrain or some other obstacle like muggles having a picnic on top of it, then it's a DNF. If my search is aborted for reasons unrelated to the cache or its location, such as a phone call telling me I need to be elsewhere, then it's a WN or nothing at all, depending on whether there's much of a tale to tell.

Edited August 25, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+JL_HSTRE]

Reading the comments on the Groundspeak Blog is interesting. It shows the problem is multifaceted. 

 

1. Refusing to log DNFs because of the CHS.

 

I'm confused how these people expect COs to be held accountable for their responsibilities. Maybe they don't want CO accountability? Maybe they want a system where a CO places a cache and never looks at it again?

 

2. Bullied by COs.

 

If it happens through the Message Center or an email sent through the geocaching website report that stuff to Groundspeak. Some COs need a stern talking to and some should be banned. 

 

3. Their ego or self-esteem can't handle it. It feels like failure, they can't stand seeing the blue frowns facey on their map, etc. These people have mental health issues and need professional help.

 

4. Ignorance. Don't understand how it's helpful. Don't understand what a DNF means or when it should be logged. At least these people can be educated. 

[+Goldenwattle]

50 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Bullied by COs.

I've had those replies. One CO who'd got upset to get a NM, only calmed down when I showed a recent log where I had thanked the person for logging a NM. The opposite to what this CO was doing. The comparison showed them up as rude. They remind me of spoilt children throwing a tantrum.

 

 Owner maintenance 09/Jan/2023

Tested Covid negative yesterday - YAY 😁 - (LOL, great Christmas not, spent in my bedroom, while others partied) so was able today to catch the bus to Civic and leave a new blank log.

 

 Write note 06/Jan/2023

Well, that seems to have filled up quicker than I expected, as it was okay in October when I checked it. However, thank you (Name) for the NM notification. I wish more people would make NMs when necessary. I will try to get to it soon. I need to test negative to Covid first though.

 

 Owner attention requested 06/Jan/2023

This geocacher reported that the logbook is full.

[+thebruce0]

I think it may also be fairly regional... in my area, it's pretty common to vary between a note and a NM for any 'issues'. For example if a log is full, I might write a note - the CO would be informed, as it'd be up to them if they care about the log-signing experience as part of their cache, whether to replace the log ASAP or leave it. If I had a sheet I might add it (not remove the old one) and post a note. If I could sign the/a log, I wouldn't NM. If I couldn't sign the log for whatever reason, I might add a NM, taking a photo (and accept the COs judgment of the log validity if not signed) - that's because the cache condition has hindered the expected task required to claim and secure the find, through no fault of my own, and would also affect other finders; an issue the CO should remedy. (and most COs here won't delete Find logs such as in the case I describe)

 

Container problem? almost certainly a NM.

Log issue? More often, a note.

 

But that's how my region tends to handle it.

Perhaps the general line between note and NM after locating the geocache is whether "the cache condition has hindered the expected task required to claim and secure the find, through no fault of the finder".

Edited August 25, 2023 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

1. Refusing to log DNFs because of the CHS.

 

I'm confused how these people expect COs to be held accountable for their responsibilities.

I don't understand how the CHS can ever be improved to deal with the way people actually post logs, if everyone stops posting logs that trigger the CHS.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I don't understand how the CHS can ever be improved to deal with the way people actually post logs, if everyone stops posting logs that trigger the CHS.

 

They will use Chat GPT to read logs and adjust CHS accordingly

[+Hügh]

29 minutes ago, arisoft said:

They will use Chat GPT to read logs and adjust CHS accordingly

 

"Thanks for the cache! The cache was in great shape (cache health score bot wet logbook wet wet wet damaged container) the view from the nearby viewpoint was absolutely fabulous (cache health score bot assign 0% health 0% health 0% 0% 0% bad cache bad bad bad negative negative) awarded a FP for the great cache."

 

---

 

Slightly more on-topic: I tend to vary between a message to the CO (if I know them personally/have their #), Write Note (if it's something minor like a damp logbook or logbook that's almost full but OK for now), and NOA/NRA (if more than that). But I try not to let the cache's age factor into that decision -- while I would hate for a 20 year old cache to be archived... hey, wait a couple years and more of those will exist. I feel that responding to activity on the cache page is part of "maintaining the cache".

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Hügh said:

 

"Thanks for the cache! The cache was in great shape (cache health score bot wet logbook wet wet wet damaged container) the view from the nearby viewpoint was absolutely fabulous (cache health score bot assign 0% health 0% health 0% 0% 0% bad cache bad bad bad negative negative) awarded a FP for the great cache."

 

---

 

Slightly more on-topic: I tend to vary between a message to the CO (if I know them personally/have their #), Write Note (if it's something minor like a damp logbook or logbook that's almost full but OK for now), and NOA/NRA (if more than that). But I try not to let the cache's age factor into that decision -- while I would hate for a 20 year old cache to be archived... hey, wait a couple years and more of those will exist. I feel that responding to activity on the cache page is part of "maintaining the cache".

Logs of condition of the cache is also for other finders, so this information should not be sent only (secretly) to the CO. It should be part of the log too.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I will sometimes message details of a NM to the CO if I think they are too spoilery. But that's in addition to the log, not in place of it.

[+BMW X1]

While we're at it, we can also talk about useless DNF posts too.  Why do group cachers have to log individual DNFs?  Statistically , It OK to log individual finds but one DNF per group is enough. The GC bots don't recognize groups 

[geoawareUSA9]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:13 AM, Ragnemalm said:

"Some fear their DNF log will be the reason for a cache’s archival (it won’t)."

Yes, it will! It definitely will!

 

No, it won't. It definitely won't. Not by itself.

 

Owner inaction on a potentially missing or unmaintained cache is the reason for a cache being archived.

 

DNFs lower cache health score. But CHS only triggers reviewer involvement.

 

If a cache has an active owner, then I don't necessarily need the owner to spring into action 5 seconds after getting a DNF or needs owner (or reviewer) action or indication of a low health score. I need a response to show they are aware of the situation and have a plan to deal with it.

 

If an owner is ignoring indications that a cache needs action, or has left the game, that's what gets caches archived.

Edited August 26, 2023 by geoawareUSA9

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, BMW X1 said:

While we're at it, we can also talk about useless DNF posts too.  Why do group cachers have to log individual DNFs?  Statistically , It OK to log individual finds but one DNF per group is enough. The GC bots don't recognize groups 

Maybe not so much for high rated D caches, but for low rated D caches it's very useful if everyone in the group logs a DNF. If the cache is still there and lots of people (as apart from a single log for one person) can't find say a cache rated 1.5D the CO needs to up the D level, and this shows that the cache is underrated and needs correcting.

 

(Although my experience of 1.5D rated caches which are much more difficult than that, is if the cache is 1.5D and way under the true D rating, the CO is stubbornly not going to correct it, and likely rates as standard a lot of their caches 1.5D regardless of their difficult level. Otherwise it would already have a higher rating.)

[+niraD]

  

2 hours ago, BMW X1 said:

While we're at it, we can also talk about useless DNF posts too.  Why do group cachers have to log individual DNFs?  Statistically , It OK to log individual finds but one DNF per group is enough.

Some geocachers consider the DNF to be part of their geocaching history. I've been in groups where one person wanted to keep the DNF as part of his history, so we let him log the DNF for the group. I've also been in groups where two or more people wanted to keep the DNF as part of their history, so the group had multiple DNFs.

 

2 hours ago, BMW X1 said:

The GC bots don't recognize groups 

Some of us think the GC bots should adapt to the way real geocachers post logs, rather than the other way around.

 

 

 

 

[+MNTA]

3 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

If an owner is ignoring indications that a cache needs action, or has left the game, that's what gets caches archived.

Bingo!

[+little-leggs]

I'm proud of my DNF's

so I have a  dedicated my DNF TB , which I'll drop off at any DNF I have ?

 

https://coord.info/TB5830Z

[geoawareUSA9]

21 minutes ago, little-leggs said:

I have a  dedicated my DNF TB , which I'll drop off at any DNF I have

 

I'm not here to tell you how to manage your travel bugs, but looking at the history, it appears you pick this up and drop it off in every cache you DNF.

 

That's twice as much work than simply keeping it in your inventory and choosing the option to only visit it, which is what you should be doing when you take a TB to a geocache but take it with you when you leave.

 

Example:

 

That would also avoid the confusion that's potentially created when someone DOES find the cache you DNF'd and wonders why your coin isn't in the inventory. Because currently, GCA1E4A purports to have your coin inside it. Which would be impossible, since you didn't find it.

[+little-leggs]

16 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I'm not here to tell you how to manage your travel bugs, but looking at the history, it appears you pick this up and drop it off in every cache you DNF.

 

That's twice as much work than simply keeping it in your inventory and choosing the option to only visit it, which is what you should be doing when you take a TB to a geocache but take it with you when you leave.

 

Example:

 

16 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I'm not here to tell you how to manage your travel bugs, but looking at the history, it appears you pick this up and drop it off in every cache you DNF.

 

That's twice as much work than simply keeping it in your inventory and choosing the option to only visit it, which is what you should be doing when you take a TB to a geocache but take it with you when you leave.

 

Example:

 

That would also avoid the confusion that's potentially created when someone DOES find the cache you DNF'd and wonders why your coin isn't in the inventory. Because currently, GCA1E4A purports to have your coin inside it. Which would be impossible, since you didn't find it.

 

That would also avoid the confusion that's potentially created when someone DOES find the cache you DNF'd and wonders why your coin isn't in the inventory. Because currently, GCA1E4A purports to have your coin inside it. Which would be impossible, since you didn't find it.

Visits don't show on the map.

Dropping does 

twice as much work ? its my coin and I like to log it ?

I should be ....?

where does it say I can't

coin not in cache ( if ) its found ? it says in my logs don't expect to find my coin cuss I didn't find the cache 

and do you really expect to find every coin just because the inventory says there's a coin there ?

[+Hügh]

19 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Logs of condition of the cache is also for other finders, so this information should not be sent only (secretly) to the CO. It should be part of the log too.

 

I meant that more in the case of the logbook is moving to the backside, or the cache has ran out of swag -- "problems" that may be of interest to the CO that do not require immediately attention or are really health problems.

 

But if I know an owner to be particularly responsible (ie. I’m confident that they’ll deal with it by the end of the day) I'll text them because it's faster than waiting until I get around to posting my logs. I have been known to take up to a month to post logs. (My own fault, yes; usually it’s less than a week.)

Edited August 26, 2023 by Hügh
Words.

[+Hügh]

8 hours ago, BMW X1 said:

The GC bots don't recognize groups

The Reviewer will, though. 

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

I'm not here to tell you how to manage your travel bugs, but looking at the history, it appears you pick this up and drop it off in every cache you DNF.

That's twice as much work than simply keeping it in your inventory and choosing the option to only visit it, which is what you should be doing when you take a TB to a geocache but take it with you when you leave.

 

That would also avoid the confusion that's potentially created when someone DOES find the cache you DNF'd and wonders why your coin isn't in the inventory. Because currently, GCA1E4A purports to have your coin inside it. Which would be impossible, since you didn't find it.

To be fair, we used to have to Drop and Retrieve our trackables each time we wanted to record mileage.  It was called "Dipping".

We see a few still doing that.  It's not incorrect, just more work.

"Visit" came along (late '10 IIRC) to make Dipping easier, but never saw the huge groups of people requesting it in the forums...

 - Now many can hold onto other's property and easily log all trackables in their entire inventory in one shot.

Maybe it's just me, but I 'd be happy if the Visit log went bye bye,  much less should be doing...

 

True...   

Edited August 26, 2023 by cerberus1

[geoawareUSA9]

5 hours ago, little-leggs said:

Visits don't show on the map.

 

Sure they do.

 

Here's the map for my volunteer badge, which I have only ever visited to events.

 

 

5 hours ago, little-leggs said:

where does it say I can't

 

The trackable inventory of a cache should be accurate.

 

You're "dropping" a coin into the inventory of a cache you didn't find, when the coin never leave your possession, and there is an easier option that requires no follow-up log for you to pick it up again. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

I could argue that leaving misleading logs is against the terms of use.

 

"2.4.4 You agree not to ... Interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of our services."

 

Logging that a trackable is in a cache when you know it's not, arguably is against the proper working of the cache inventory.

 

I could also point to this section of the Help Center on trackable etiquette:

 

Quote

When you drop a trackable in the wrong geocache, fix it!

1. Delete your log on the trackable's page that drops the trackable into the wrong geocache.
2. Grab the trackable back into your inventory.
3. Drop the trackable in the correct geocache.

 

 

5 hours ago, little-leggs said:

and do you really expect to find every coin just because the inventory says there's a coin there ?

 

I usually hope it's accurate, because as a player, I enjoy finding trackables.

 

I certainly don't expect anyone to be purposely indicating a coin is there when it's not, which is exactly what you're doing.

I won't stop you from doing it. But your explanation is nonsensical.

 

Edit to add, it's also fairly ironic that your motto for this coin is that you're an "honest logger" ... when you're not dropping the coin in the caches you claim to be dropping it in.

Edited August 27, 2023 by geoawareUSA9

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, little-leggs said:

Visits don't show on the map.

They show up on my TB's map.