Comments on "Where are the missing DNFs?"

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

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.

If it's dropped off and picked up again, the TB won't stay long in the DNF cache. Only as long as it takes to make the second log.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[geoawareUSA9]

Just now, Goldenwattle said:

Just now, geoawareUSA9 said:

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.

If it's dropped off and picked up again, the TB won't stay long in the DNF cache. Only as long as it takes to make the second log.

 

If that was what @little-leggs was doing, it wouldn't be an issue, and I would only have suggested visiting as a matter of convenience to him as the coin's owner.

 

If you look at the TB's history, though, he lets it sit in each cache until his next DNF happens, and that's problematic, because it's not in the cache it purports to be in.

 

For example, it was in the inventory for GC69HDQ from 30 July to 24 August.

 

Prior to that, it was in the inventory of GCA8TK1 for a month.

[+Goldenwattle]

29 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

If that was what @little-leggs was doing, it wouldn't be an issue, and I would only have suggested visiting as a matter of convenience to him as the coin's owner.

 

If you look at the TB's history, though, he lets it sit in each cache until his next DNF happens, and that's problematic, because it's not in the cache it purports to be in.

 

For example, it was in the inventory for GC69HDQ from 30 July to 24 August.

 

Prior to that, it was in the inventory of GCA8TK1 for a month.

I see what you are saying. That is a problem.

[+barefootjeff]

On 8/27/2023 at 12:17 AM, niraD said:

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

 

I wonder how the bot will adapt to the conclusion from the survey that "actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs". Will it start treating each logged DNF as if there were 3 or 5? Or should it start pinging caches as likely to be missing and needing owner attention if they haven't been found for a while when the statistics suggest they should have been?

[+little-leggs]

WoW 

this has defiantly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

no mention of the DNF ? was the cache there , has its owner maintained it , or was it me having a bad caching day .

 

visit a TB to a cache  ,

 

do you take ALL your TB's to every cache you visit it to , I think not  

[+little-leggs]

20 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

that's problematic, because it's not in the cache it purports to be in.

question

how many cache inventory's reflect the correct constancy of a cache ?

thank you , LOTS 

how many C.O will go and check the contents , to see if it match's the inventory ?

 

DNF , is it me or is the cache missing , has the C.O checked on that fact , I doubt it  . the cache the coin sits in has six DNF's , no maintenance visit  by the C.O no interaction by the reviewer ? 

 

I'm surprised you have mentioned the fact the fictitious  TB is in a cache I didn't find which potentially is not even there and its a ( NANO ) and the coin wouldn't fit in a NANO ?

[+little-leggs]

12 minutes ago, little-leggs said:

question

how many cache inventory's reflect the correct contents  of a cache ?

thank you , LOTS 

how many C.O will go and check the contents , to see if it match's the inventory ?

 

DNF , is it me or is the cache missing , has the C.O checked on that fact , I doubt it  . the cache the coin sits in has six DNF's , no maintenance visit  by the C.O no interaction by the reviewer ? 

 

I'm surprised you have mentioned the fact the fictitious  TB is in a cache I didn't find which potentially is not even there and its a ( NANO ) and the coin wouldn't fit in a NANO ?

13 DNF's on the cache ?
then a Found log by a cacher with 11 finds

then 6 more DNF's 

this must be a very well hidden nano under a bench ?

where's the C.O , which one of the rules does this contravene 

Edited August 27, 2023 by little-leggs

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I wonder how the bot will adapt to the conclusion from the survey that "actual DNF rates were 3–5 times higher than what was reported in online logs". Will it start treating each logged DNF as if there were 3 or 5? Or should it start pinging caches as likely to be missing and needing owner attention if they haven't been found for a while when the statistics suggest they should have been?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, little-leggs said:

do you take ALL your TB's to every cache you visit it to , I think not  

I for one never visit trackables to caches unless I have the trackable when I am at the cache.

[+fizzymagic]

1 hour ago, little-leggs said:

how many cache inventory's reflect the correct constancy of a cache ?

thank you , LOTS 

how many C.O will go and check the contents , to see if it match's the inventory ?

 

Not me.  The cache's inventory of trackables is not the cache owner's concern.  If a trackable owner wants to see whether their trackable is in my cache, they are welcome to do so by visiting it themselves.  Otherwise, I don't get involved with trackables, which are not my property like the cache is.

[geoawareUSA9]

12 hours ago, little-leggs said:

no mention of the DNF ? was the cache there , has its owner maintained it , or was it me having a bad caching day .

 

Sure, because none of those things were in your control, so it's not really helpful discussing them with you.

 

On the other hand, leaving false TB logs (with the increasingly ironically titled "Honest Loggers Coin") was entirely within your control, as was your letting the TB sit in cache inventories for a month or more for your convenience.

 

I'll leave you to your devices, with one last thought:

 

If what you're doing is OK, then it'd be OK if everyone "dropped" a TB in a cache every time they felt like it without actually leaving it behind, then left it there until they felt like "moving" it to another geocache, right? And then we'd never have to worry about whether cache inventories was correct, because we'd know for sure that they were not.

[geoawareUSA9]

10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

The cache's inventory of trackables is not the cache owner's concern.

 

If that were the case, then cache owners wouldn't have the ability to mark TBs missing  from their caches' inventories.

 

It might not be your concern, but it's within a cache owner's prerogative to maintain their caches' inventories.

[+thebruce0]

On 8/26/2023 at 7:29 AM, BMW X1 said:

The GC bots don't recognize groups 

No but reviewers do. If you want to post a DNF, do so. If you don't because you were in a group, then don't. But choose because of the CHS.

 

 

14 hours ago, little-leggs said:

do you take ALL your TB's to every cache you visit it to , I think not  

I have traveling personal TBs that I visit to all the caches that are related to them. My personal gps TB visit every find. My car TB visits every cache I drive to. My kayak TB visits every cache I paddle to.  (my logging them isn't perfect, I've missed a bunch, but that's my intent)  They're never dropped in a cache listing because they are never left at a cache. They are with my personally for discovery if other people see them. This is a very common use for personal TBs.

 

 

12 hours ago, niraD said:

I for one never visit trackables to caches unless I have the trackable when I am at the cache.

For me, if I have it with me, or perhaps left in the car. If I visit the TB (which isn't mine) to a cache I find that's relevant to its goal, I'll more likely visit it there if I remember. As a TB owner I'd love to see it's movement travels to locations that are relevant to the goal I set it. I don't care so much if my TB physically approaches every cache container or virtual waypoint. I just like to see how it moves and accomplishes its goals

 

37 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

It might not be your concern, but it's within a cache owner's prerogative to maintain their caches' inventories.

 

I'm not sure about "maintain the caches' inventories", but the ability to mark as missing is certainly a help to the TBs' owners since the CO is the only one can objectively identify if a cache is missing and does not have relevant TBs in its possession. I'd say it's a helpful final punctuation ability that the CO has; but it's not their responsibility (in the strictest sense, not sure if the word appears in the guidelines :P) because they have no control over who "drops" TBs into the container.

 

I think it's similar in obligation to maintaining the integrity of their caches' log history. Anyone can post any log at any time, so no one should expect that the log history is going to be 100% accurate 24/7. And clearly it's not a responsibility to the point that if a false log is reported the CO will immediately see consequences. It's more like, the CO has the ability and it's in good spirit to make use of that ability for the sake of the community - ensuring Find logs are consistent with finders' signatures, plus other log types, and TB logs. It's better for the community, but not a required obligation.  That's how I understand it at least.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

If that were the case, then cache owners wouldn't have the ability to mark TBs missing  from their caches' inventories.

 

It might not be your concern, but it's within a cache owner's prerogative to maintain their caches' inventories.

I have more than once checked the TBs in my TB Hotel and if not there marked them missing to get them off the inventory.

[geoawareUSA9]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

3 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

It might not be your concern, but it's within a cache owner's prerogative to maintain their caches' inventories.

 

I'm not sure about "maintain the caches' inventories", but the ability to mark as missing is certainly a help to the TBs' owners since the CO is the only one can objectively identify if a cache is missing and does not have relevant TBs in its possession. I'd say it's a helpful final punctuation ability that the CO has; but it's not their responsibility (in the strictest sense, not sure if the word appears in the guidelines :P) because they have no control over who "drops" TBs into the container.

 

I think it's similar in obligation to maintaining the integrity of their caches' log history. Anyone can post any log at any time, so no one should expect that the log history is going to be 100% accurate 24/7. And clearly it's not a responsibility to the point that if a false log is reported the CO will immediately see consequences. It's more like, the CO has the ability and it's in good spirit to make use of that ability for the sake of the community - ensuring Find logs are consistent with finders' signatures, plus other log types, and TB logs. It's better for the community, but not a required obligation.  That's how I understand it at least.

 

I tried to stay away from stating or implying that keeping track of the TBs in a cache is a cache owner responsibility or obligation.

 

That's why I used the word prerogative, as in, if a CO wants to cull a missing TB from the inventory of one of their caches, they have the ability to do so, just as the TB owner does.

Edited August 28, 2023 by geoawareUSA9

[+thebruce0]

52 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

That's why I used the word prerogative, as in, if a CO wants to cull a missing TB from the inventory of one of their caches, they have the ability to do so, just as the TB owner does.

Right, gotcha.

[+little-leggs]

6 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

If what you're doing is OK, then it'd be OK if everyone "dropped" a TB in a cache every time they felt like it without actually leaving it behind, then left it there until they felt like "moving" it to another geocache, right? And then we'd never have to worry about whether cache inventories was correct, because we'd know for sure that they were not.

The cache is missing so its immaterial weather I drop  a TB ?
goes back to the beginning

do cachers log their DNF 

and do C.O react ?

does HQ react ?

19 ( nineteen ) DNF's and the C.O has done nothing , and yes before you go into one they logged in on the 27th Aug 2023 ?
sort these issues out before thinking about one TB which can't be in a cache cuss the cache is potentially missing .

[+fizzymagic]

4 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I tried to stay away from stating or implying that keeping track of the TBs in a cache is a cache owner responsibility or obligation.

 

That's why I used the word prerogative, as in, if a CO wants to cull a missing TB from the inventory of one of their caches, they have the ability to do so, just as the TB owner does.

 

And you said it much better than I did.  I did not mean to imply that the cache owner cannot deal with the trackable inventory, but I seem to have done so.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I tried to stay away from stating or implying that keeping track of the TBs in a cache is a cache owner responsibility or obligation.

 

That's why I used the word prerogative, as in, if a CO wants to cull a missing TB from the inventory of one of their caches, they have the ability to do so, just as the TB owner does.

 

According to the Help Centre, marking trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but not physically in the cache is a CO's responsibilty:

 

[+fizzymagic]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

According to the Help Centre, marking trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but not physically in the cache is a CO's responsibilty:

 

 

Well, then, the Help Center is wrong.   As a cache owner, I try to discourage cachers from leaving trackables in my caches, but I am completely clear that I am not responsible for other people's property in my caches and I will not keep track of the cache's contents.

 

I don't particularly care if you agree or not.  I will not do it, and I have no plans to start.  I don't play the game to keep track other people's stuff without getting paid for it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would usually only expect a CO to mark trackables missing if it was either mentioned in a log or when performing owner maintenance. I would not expect a CO to visit their cache just for checking TBs, except maybe for a TB hotel.

[geoawareUSA9]

16 hours ago, little-leggs said:

The cache is missing so its immaterial weather I drop  a TB ?

 

Apparently you're under the mistaken impression that the issue is about one specific cache.

 

The issue is that you drop this coin into every cache you DNF and then just leave it there until your next DNF. You appear to do that regardless of whether the cache is missing, or if you simply couldn't locate it. You don't retrieve the coin if someone else finds the cache or the owner does maintenance; you retrieve it when you DNF another cache.

 

The side issue is that, again, simply keeping your coin in your inventory and visiting it to caches you DNF would achieve the end result you want - marking your DNFs with a coin - would avoid this entirely. Instead, you'd rather be defensive. Which is not the preferred technique, but it's certainly one way to do things.

[+thebruce0]

8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Well, then, the Help Center is wrong.   As a cache owner, I try to discourage cachers from leaving trackables in my caches, but I am completely clear that I am not responsible for other people's property in my caches and I will not keep track of the cache's contents.

 

I don't particularly care if you agree or not.  I will not do it, and I have no plans to start.  I don't play the game to keep track other people's stuff without getting paid for it.

 

Yeah I think in that context the "responsibility" term is less an enforceable responsibility, and more like, since no one else can do it, it's "up to" the cache owner to do it.  Other items on the list are similar, where they could become enforceable if not doing the task happens to a degree that could be considered abusing the system or shirking ongoing responsibility. Most often that's never the case though.  And in the case of reporting lost TBs, I doubt there's any situation really where it could become an abuse of the system, since it's a lack of an action more than misusing a feature or ability.   Interesting subject...

 

 

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I would usually only expect a CO to mark trackables missing if it was either mentioned in a log or when performing owner maintenance. I would not expect a CO to visit their cache just for checking TBs, except maybe for a TB hotel.

 

Agreed

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Well, then, the Help Center is wrong.   As a cache owner, I try to discourage cachers from leaving trackables in my caches, but I am completely clear that I am not responsible for other people's property in my caches and I will not keep track of the cache's contents.

 

I don't particularly care if you agree or not.  I will not do it, and I have no plans to start.  I don't play the game to keep track other people's stuff without getting paid for it.

Of course you are not responsible for trackables placed in your cache. Has someone inferred this?

I would not check up on trackables in any of my caches, except if during regular maintenance if I noticed a trackable is meant to be in the cache and isn't, I would mark it missing to get it off the inventory. But I wouldn't visit the cache just to check on the trackables. The exception is my TB Hotel. Occasionally I check the hotel residents (TBs) against the list of trackables. It's close to my house. Yesterday all the trackables (14 residents) were picked up* by a visiting Irish geocacher. He's taking them back to Ireland. I told him to take them all, as trackables are there to travel. I note they have not been logged out yet. I'll give it a week and then log them as no longer in the cache, so as not to disappoint anyone. I expect new residents will arrive soon. In fact I have some I brought back from Europe I can put in there, as they have done enough touring of Canberra. I like them to visit a few local caches before I offload them into the TB Hotel.  Often trackables arriving from overseas are regularly placed in the TB Hotel. My TB Hotel is locked and I think that increases the popularity for leaving TBs there.

 

* It was a small spontaneous geocaching gathering. I was working in my garden with a friend, also a geocacher, when another local geocacher brought the Irish geocacher to my TB Hotel to pick up trackables. We went out to say hello. Then a fifth geocacher who lives down the street saw us and came to join us. He hoped his trackable, which was in the Hotel, would be picked up to go to Ireland. It was.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

11 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Well, then, the Help Center is wrong.   As a cache owner, I try to discourage cachers from leaving trackables in my caches, but I am completely clear that I am not responsible for other people's property in my caches and I will not keep track of the cache's contents.

 

I don't particularly care if you agree or not.  I will not do it, and I have no plans to start.  I don't play the game to keep track other people's stuff without getting paid for it.

 

 

Fizzy, I don't disagree with you, but perhaps we're standing on the opposite sides of the same sentence.

 

To me, if I visit my cache and I notice that a listed TB isn't there, I'll mark it as missing as an act of maintenance on my cache, not on the TB. I want my cache's public face to be accurate.

 

The fact that I've also in effect performed maintenance on someone else's TB by simply untethering it from a location I don't consider 'keeping track of someone else's stuff'. Unintended effect. Just happens, no charge.

 

[+fizzymagic]

7 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

To me, if I visit my cache and I notice that a listed TB isn't there, I'll mark it as missing as an act of maintenance on my cache, not on the TB. I want my cache's public face to be accurate.

 

When I do maintenance, I will be glad to note any missing trackables.

 

But I won't undertake a maintenance visit for that purpose.

 

So yes, we probably do agree.

[+cerberus1]

More than veering OT, but similar to fizzymagic, if/when I'm doing maintenance, I'll be happy to move a trackable along or mark it missing.

When we had a few caches out (all ammo cans...) sometimes a TO would mail, asking us to check our cache for their trackable.

Most were a decent walk, and since they were ammo cans, required little maintenance here.

"When I do maintenance" wasn't good enough for most, and finally I rarely responded...

[+barefootjeff]

20 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

But I won't undertake a maintenance visit for that purpose.

 

I guess I'm the odd one out. A few times I've gone out and visited some of my more remote caches after TBs became marooned in them for what I thought was an unreasonable time, in one case a year and a half. That cache had a pair of cachers find it in the intervening time but they left the TB there, so I thought I'd better do the T4 hike out there to rescue it. On another occasion I dropped a friend's new trackable in a cache I'd just submitted for publication, thinking that would get it moving along pretty quickly, but the FTF dropped more trackables into it without taking the one I'd left and the other two finders ignored them all, so I made a trip out there to retrieve the lot and took them down to a TB hotel in northern Sydney.

 

One of my older hides, a 3/3 multi that's a 6km return hike with a fair bit of off-track bush-bashing at the end, had a TB left there in January 2021. In July 2022, another cacher logged a find but mentioned that the TB wasn't in the cache although still listed in the inventory, so I headed out there a few days later to confirm that and have a good look around in case it had been dropped on the ground before marking it as missing. Six months later, another cacher grabbed that TB when they found it in a cache in south-westerm Sydney and it's still in circulation.

 

But getting back on topic, my cache in question hasn't had any more finds since that one in July 2022 and had a DNF logged in February this year with the log just saying "DNF". I messaged the DNFer to try to determine whether they had a problem at one of the waypoints or the final and they said they'd completed all the waypoints along the fire trail but felt they weren't adequately dressed to go off-trail to GZ. With no finds in over a year and a DNF since then, I expect it won't be too long before it catches the eye of the CHS, particularly if the algorithm is tweaked to take account of the three to five DNFs that must have happened but have gone unlogged since then. There must be a 99% certainty the cache is missing, although how it could go missing is a mystery since GZ isn't the sort of place any muggle is likely to ever come across and, even if they did, the cache is well camoflaged.

[+fizzymagic]

On 8/30/2023 at 2:52 PM, barefootjeff said:

I guess I'm the odd one out. A few times I've gone out and visited some of my more remote caches after TBs became marooned in them for what I thought was an unreasonable time, in one case a year and a half. That cache had a pair of cachers find it in the intervening time but they left the TB there, so I thought I'd better do the T4 hike out there to rescue it. On another occasion I dropped a friend's new trackable in a cache I'd just submitted for publication, thinking that would get it moving along pretty quickly, but the FTF dropped more trackables into it without taking the one I'd left and the other two finders ignored them all, so I made a trip out there to retrieve the lot and took them down to a TB hotel in northern Sydney.

 

I think I speak for the majority here when I say we marvel at your cache-owner awesomeness.