No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yeah, like Waymarking's really popular here, there are a whole four of them in Sydney and none on the Central Coast or in Newcastle.

Sounds like geocaching in your area.

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As I said, if you want a website that lists unowned property or waypoints for amazing hikes and experiences, make one, commission one, or use one that already exists - like Waymarking.

As far as I know that's basically just American. I don't even know how it works. It it logging trigs and similar?

[+thebruce0]

"Trig" categories (not just American)

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"Trig" categories (not just American)

There is an Australian site that has been listing trigs for years and anyone here that I know of that logs trigs tends to log the trigs there. There are always exceptions, but I personally have zero interest in Waymarking.  I log trigs on the Australian site. They don't list all survey marks, just trigs. They have recently added the NZ trigs.

[Keystone]

The thread isn't about Waymarking or Trigpointing.  As those points have been made, the discussion can move on and get back on topic.

[+Mermaid.Man]

And if I remember correctly, the topic is about whether it is ever acceptable to log an OAR log when you haven't found the cache.  In essence whether you can say "I think that the cache is clearly missing, could the owner please check?".

Well it's a subjective question really where we are relying on the player to consider the evidence and make a decision before posting.  Personally, I have logged a couple of OAR logs recently where I've not been able to find a low difficulty cache and there have been a number of DNFs by experienced players before mine.  In these cases I was pretty confident (95% perhaps) that there was a problem which needed addressing by the owner.  I think that this is a pretty reasonable call.  Would I have taken the same decision if mine was the first DNF? Certainly not.

We've heard a lot about fringe cases where such a decision might lead to an unnecessary archival, which might be a big deal in an area with not many caches.  That's an interesting discussion but I don't feel that it changes the basic facts.  Most of these comments have been about how wrong it is to post an OAR log for a perfectly good cache (perhaps for a wet logbook or something similar), but this discussion is about whether to ask the CO to check on a cache that seems clearly to be missing, and where there is strong evidence to suggest this.

Many of the comments seem to suggest that even posting a DNF log is the wrong thing to do, especially when the owner is inactive.  A DNF log is literally saying that you had a look but you didn't find the cache.

I agree with the comments which suggest that we should expect each cache to have an owner who monitors the activity on it and responds to any issues.  That's just geocaching 101 surely? If the owner moves out of the game without putting their affairs in order then it's reasonable to expect their caches to be removed from the gameboard when they become unviable.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

And if I remember correctly, the topic is about whether it is ever acceptable to log an OAR log when you haven't found the cache.  In essence whether you can say "I think that the cache is clearly missing, could the owner please check?".

Well it's a subjective question really where we are relying on the player to consider the evidence and make a decision before posting.  Personally, I have logged a couple of OAR logs recently where I've not been able to find a low difficulty cache and there have been a number of DNFs by experienced players before mine.  In these cases I was pretty confident (95% perhaps) that there was a problem which needed addressing by the owner.  I think that this is a pretty reasonable call.  Would I have taken the same decision if mine was the first DNF? Certainly not.

Similar to me. I would rarely make a NM when I was the first DNF, unless it's very obvious the cache is missing. The area has had a bull dozer through and the place scrapped clean, for instance; that would get a NM for the first DNF, but this is an exception.

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

We've heard a lot about fringe cases where such a decision might lead to an unnecessary archival, which might be a big deal in an area with not many caches.  That's an interesting discussion but I don't feel that it changes the basic facts.  

It does change the situation though. Although I am more likely it appears to make a NM and later a NA it seems than most people, this is usually only in places with lots of caches. In places with few caches, or if this might be the only cache for a huge distance, I am very hesitant to log a NM. Also for old caches, such as 2000 published caches. For remote, rare caches, if I can fix the cache I will. Replace a crumbing cache, or add a new log. In remote places, I find maintenance is what is needed far more than the cache is missing. Rarely missing. Whereas with an urban cache I just do a NM and won't fix the cache without CO approval. Urban caches are also much more likely to be missing than remote caches, as remote caches, baring a landslide or something, almost never go missing. They just deteriorate. If I can fix this I will; otherwise I will leave a note asking if the next person can please bring a new cache or log. For rare, remote caches I don't make a NM except for exceptional reasons.

 

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Most of these comments have been about how wrong it is to post an OAR log for a perfectly good cache (perhaps for a wet logbook or something similar), but this discussion is about whether to ask the CO to check on a cache that seems clearly to be missing, and where there is strong evidence to suggest this.

A NM is to let the CO know there is a problem and they need to maintain their cache. Replace the log or something, not only for missing caches. Not all COs read the normal logs.

 

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

If the owner moves out of the game without putting their affairs in order then it's reasonable to expect their caches to be removed from the gameboard when they become unviable.

Lots of comments like this, appear to come from people who live in countries where caches are not hundreds of kms apart and will likely never be replaced. Your comments are fine for NZ, but not for all parts of the world, where it might be a drive of several hundred kms between caches. And they will almost certainly NEVER be replaced. People travel through there, but very few people live there to place new caches. Also, as said, caches in remote places are far more likely just to need maintenance, rather than be missing. There isn't the large muggle population to steal the caches.

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Many of the comments seem to suggest that even posting a DNF log is the wrong thing to do, especially when the owner is inactive.  A DNF log is literally saying that you had a look but you didn't find the cache.

I agree, a DNF means that for whatever reason you didn't find the cache, not that it is necessarily missing, although several DNFs on a low rated cache is strongly indicative of missing. Or the CO is one of those who rate most of their caches wrongly; often 1.5D/1.5T, and WON'T take feed back aboard and correct the rating.

You have now made me consider that for rare, remote caches, maybe a note might be safer.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+MartyBartfast]

A number of occasions when I've logged NM's(*) without finding a cache and I think they're all legitimate:

• Puzzle cache where one of the components of the page nolonger worked.
• Multi cache where one of the signs required for the coords was missing (I guess that kinda counts as not finding [part of] the cache).
• Cache which said it's inside a tree, got there and there was clear evidence of a large tree having been recently cut down.
• At GZ a new road was being constructed and the GPS is pointing ~50m inside  a fenced off compound with signs warning of dire consequences for entering.
• I logged  DNFs following multiple  DNFs, but for those I have only logged the NM if I was absolutely certain it was missing, and not just a difficult hide.
   

(*) Much as I still call "X" Twitter, I still call the Owner Attention Required log NM and will probably continue to do so for a  looooong time.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

A NM is to let the CO know there is a problem and they need to maintain their cache.

Agreed, and it also lets the community know that the CO has been told about it, so someone coming across the same issue within a few days doesn't need to log an NM as it's already been done, but also if the same issue is still there a month or more later and no action has been taken by the CO then it might be appropriate to log an NA due to the owner NOT maintaining their cache, I've logged a few NAs on that basis.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

50 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

still call the Owner Attention Required log NM and will probably continue to do so for a  looooong time.

Same

[+thebruce0]

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Lots of comments like this, appear to come from people who live in countries where caches are not hundreds of kms apart and will likely never be replaced. Your comments are fine for NZ, but not for all parts of the world, where it might be a drive of several hundred kms between caches.

And this is why it's always up to the reviewer to decide what to do about logs like DNFs and NM/OARs on caches that are 'beloved' but seem to have an AWOL owner. And it's why the CHS itself doesn't do anything. So yeah, I agree it's still appropriate and accurate for the experiences associated with a geocache to log DNFs and OARs when they are consistent with the experience a user has had with the cache. After that, it's up to the implied owner and local reviewer to decide which way to move forward.

[+barefootjeff]

18 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Most of these comments have been about how wrong it is to post an OAR log for a perfectly good cache (perhaps for a wet logbook or something similar), but this discussion is about whether to ask the CO to check on a cache that seems clearly to be missing, and where there is strong evidence to suggest this.

Many of the comments seem to suggest that even posting a DNF log is the wrong thing to do, especially when the owner is inactive.  A DNF log is literally saying that you had a look but you didn't find the cache.

 

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but just to be clear, I have no objection to anyone posting DNFs or OARs for any reason (and by the way, I wouldn't consider a cache with a wet logbook to be "perfectly good", if the log's getting wet the container needs fixing). I've frequently done that myself. I've logged 17 DNFs this year: 2 where I knew the cache was okay but just couldn't get to it, 7 where I didn't find it but the cache turned out to be okay, 3 where the cache was confirmed to be missing and 5 that are still indeterminate as mine was the most recent log. On one of those I also added a "cache might be missing" NM as I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant an owner check.

 

What does concern me is the way these log types have been turned into de-facto RARs on the basis of a secret log-counting algorithm and health score. I preferred the old way where a DNF was just an account of an unsuccessful search for the cache, an NM was a heads up to the CO about something they should be made aware of (and didn't mean the cache should be referred to the reviewer if they didn't respond) and an NA was the log required to bring the reviewer in to take a look at the situation. Just recently in an online video Q&A, our reviewer was asked about how to deal with CHS false positives caused by DNFs saying there were too many muggles at GZ, and his response was that searchers shouldn't be logging DNFs unless they got to GZ and did a thorough search, and that COs should be reaching out educate those logging "inappropriate" DNFs. I guess I'll have to be more circumspect with my DNF logs from now on, lest I get an "educational" message from the CO.

Edited November 25, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I've logged 17 DNFs this year

That got me counting. I have logged 66 DNFs so far this year. Some of them I have then found on return visits; a couple I even gave favourites to.

 

I have logged 32 NMs, of which 7 have been archived, 4 are disabled, 8 replaced by CO, 2 replaced by other people (one after the CO told me off for making a NM), one I was the last logger, and no action yet, one I made a NM after a string of DNFs (2D) but the cache has since been found. Problem still not fixed 5 but continues to get logged. Of the last five, one has had 3 more NMs and one...wait for it  has had in total 79 NMs, but because people still log it, nothing has been done about this.

 

I have made 8 NA, of which 4 have been archived, 3 repaired by CO, one by someone else.

 

(I may have miscounted a tad here, but the basis is okay)

[+barefootjeff]

11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That got me counting. I have logged 66 DNFs so far this year. Some of them I have then found on return visits; a couple I even gave favourites to.

 

As a percentage of finds, our DNF rates are fairly similar. Yours is 6.9% and mine's 8.5%, I guess I'm a bit more of a Blind Freddy.

[+colleda]

Today, an experienced cacher (3k+) has finished(?) my Fernleigh Track series of 21 traditional caches (including one disabled). However, what concerns me is they have only logged 13 finds. I am now left wondering if they skipped some or DNF'd them. So, do I go and check or just wait for the next cacher to do them. I'll wait and think about sending the cacher a polite message asking if they DNF'd any.

If people can't find my caches I want to know about it.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, colleda said:

If people can't find my caches I want to know about it.

Not only does it tell that something might be wrong, the number of DNFs (if nothing is wrong) assists with setting a correct rating for the cache.

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, colleda said:

Today, an experienced cacher (3k+) has finished(?) my Fernleigh Track series of 21 traditional caches (including one disabled). However, what concerns me is they have only logged 13 finds. I am now left wondering if they skipped some or DNF'd them. So, do I go and check or just wait for the next cacher to do them. I'll wait and think about sending the cacher a polite message asking if they DNF'd any.

If people can't find my caches I want to know about it.

 

A few possible explanations come to mind, such as only doing the ones they needed for a challenge cache, skipping the higher-D ones or even just leaving some for a later visit. If the ones they didn't log have had recent finds, I'd be doing a wait-and-see. Taking a quick look at a few, they still seem to be getting several logs a month so maybe give it a few weeks.

 

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not only does it tell that something might be wrong, the number of DNFs (if nothing is wrong) assists with setting a correct rating for the cache.

 

That's why I try to make my DNF logs as detailed as I can, so the CO (and others) can hopefully get a good idea of whether there might be a problem or not, particularly as most of the time there's not.

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A few possible explanations come to mind, such as only doing the ones they needed for a challenge cache, skipping the higher-D ones or even just leaving some for a later visit. If the ones they didn't log have had recent finds, I'd be doing a wait-and-see. Taking a quick look at a few, they still seem to be getting several logs a month so maybe give it a few weeks.

 

 

That's why I try to make my DNF logs as detailed as I can, so the CO (and others) can hopefully get a good idea of whether there might be a problem or not, particularly as most of the time there's not.

They found the toughest one of the series, a D4, for which finders often need multiple attempts (Team 737 had four goes before your DNF). Plus a couple of others that are tricky and skipped a few easy ones. No pattern.

[+thebruce0]

41 minutes ago, colleda said:

They found the toughest one of the series, a D4, for which finders often need multiple attempts (Team 737 had four goes before your DNF). Plus a couple of others that are tricky and skipped a few easy ones. No pattern.

It's not always about toughest caches; if there's any kind of grid they're working on there cold be holes of specific DTs, even easy ones. If find date is involved that throws even more complexity into the finds as they may be choosing to save specific DTs for specific dates. Too vague to know for sure, but as they say usually the easiest explanation is the right one; and I'm gently siding towards not logging DNFs as well

[+justintim1999]

Found the cache = Found log

Found the cache & it needs maintenance = Found & Needs maintenance logs

Didn't find the cache = Did not find log

 

Needs archived is the only subjective log choice and should only be used with care.  

 

If you post the correct logs eventually the cache will be flagged, and a reviewer will get involved to resolve the issue one way or the other.      

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Found the cache = Found log

Found the cache & it needs maintenance = Found & Needs maintenance logs

Didn't find the cache = Did not find log

 

Needs archived is the only subjective log choice and should only be used with care.  

 

If you post the correct logs eventually the cache will be flagged, and a reviewer will get involved to resolve the issue one way or the other.      

 

Eventually is the key word, as if a cache is off the beaten track, has a high D/T rating and gets few attempts it can take an awfully long time, if ever, for the CHS to flag it. Take GC5A2KE, for example, a 1.5/5 water access cache. It was last found in January 2021 but was next attempted in November 2022 when the searcher found that the structure on which the cache was placed is no longer there. The CO is long gone from the game so they're not going to respond to the DNF log, or the WN someone posted earlier this month. Fortunately a previous finder logged an NM in May, which I followed up with an NA last week after going out there and taking photos of GZ.

 

Another example is GC440XX, a 1.5/2.5 traditional, which was last found in 2019 and had three DNFs prior to my unsuccessful attempt in July. There's only one "big round rock" at GZ matching the hint and I knew from the gallery photos that it was a fake rock cache, but after a thorough search in the limited number of nooks and crannies around and under that rock I came up empty-handed. What I did find, though, was a lot of flood debris from the 2021-22 la Nina deluges, so I thought there was sufficient evidence that the cache was missing to log an NM as well as my DNF. It needed owner attention and when that didn't happen the reviewer stepped in and archived it, but if he hadn't I'd have followed it up with an NA.

 

The DNF log by itself is too blunt an instrument to reliably identify missing caches. People log DNFs for all manner of reasons that don't imply the cache might be missing, such as muggles having a picnic at GZ or whatever, while on the other hand there can be strong evidence on a high D/T cache that it's gone which the CHS won't pick up because it just counts logs, it doesn't read them. What's so evil about logging an NM (now Owner Attention Requested) to explicitly request an owner check on a cache that's clearly gone?

[+justintim1999]

Blunt and evil are such harsh words for a logging process that's quite simple.     Only asking that people think about the logs they use before they use them.  Each log conveys specific information about ones visit and allows me to decide what, if anything, I'm going to find if I decide to go looking.        

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Blunt and evil are such harsh words for a logging process that's quite simple.     Only asking that people think about the logs they use before they use them.  Each log conveys specific information about ones visit and allows me to decide what, if anything, I'm going to find if I decide to go looking.        

 

So what would you decide if this is the most recent log? Or if you were the CO for that matter...

 

 

The two preceding logs were a find and an OM about a missing trackable in mid 2022, nearly a year and a half ago, and the cache is a 7-stage 3/3 multi.

Edited November 27, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+justintim1999]

If I were a cacher and didn't find the final for any reason....DNF noting where along the way I was stopped.   I wouldn't consider the Owner's maintenance log as I wouldn't post an OM for a missing trackable but I would mention it in the DNF or in a separate note.

 

If I were the owner.... I'd see two finds (I assume the OM on the missing trackable was a find) and one DNF.    Everyone's maintenance runs are different, but I wouldn't be moving up my schedule any time soon for one DNF.    I also wouldn't be removing the trackable until I could confirm it was missing.   I would take note of the Cachers experience though.   I know that some people think that a series like the one you described absolves them of actually having to check up on them from time to time.   I guess that's something you have to be willing to do if you're going to place a series like that.  I would think an owner of a cache like that would appreciate the accurate use of logs...especially the owner's maintenance one. 

[+L0ne.R]

46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So what would you decide if this is the most recent log? Or if you were the CO for that matter...

 

 

The two preceding logs were a find and an OM about a missing trackable in mid 2022, nearly a year and a half ago, and the cache is a 7-stage 3/3 multi.

 

It will depend on the logs before it, the owner's reputation, and what was written in the OM--does it indicate that the owner confirms that it's there or likely there.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 11/15/2023 at 11:32 AM, arisoft said:

1. Active CO, cache does not need maintenance

2. Active CO, cache needs maintenance

3. Active CO, cache maintained by visitors

4. Inactive CO, cache does not need maintenance

5. Inactive CO, cache needs maintenance

6. Inactive CO, cache maintained by visitors

 

Which options have no place in this game?

IMHO - options 3, 4, 5 and 6 have no place 

for option 3 - COs who expect others to do the maintenance for them - where does it say that an active CO can relinquish their responsibility to maintain their own caches by handing that over to visitors of their caches - I am not saying it doesn't happen or that it isn't appreciated when it does happen - but it is frustrating when you as a finder of a cache gets lambasted by a CO when you have added an OAR log because the cache and logsheet are in a dire state and in need of attention and told by said CO "why do an OAR, why didn't you replace the logsheet yourself !!!"  (sorry another can of worms opened !!! )
Options 4, 5 and 6 - Any CO who no longer wants to play the game and goes inactive should remove all their caches and bow out of the game or get their caches adopted over to an active CO and bow out of the game. I have seen all to often a CO going inactive and having series of caches still out there only for them to one by one get archived because they go missing or don't get maintained and where there were say 20 caches on a trail you end up with 4 or 5 scattered around - local active cachers waiting for them all to go so that they can put a completely new trail out or they put a few out but are scuppered in putting a complete trail out because of the few remaining 
COs alone have the responsibility to maintain the caches that they place out there and all the while those COs are active those caches are 'in the game' - if they are active in keeping their caches maintained then they should not have to worry about algorithms and the like 

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Found the cache = Found log

Found the cache & it needs maintenance = Found & Needs maintenance logs

Didn't find the cache = Did not find log

 

Needs archived is the only subjective log choice and should only be used with care.  

Agree with the first two. The third one though depends on how many DNFs before you and the cache rating. If you are the first DNF, that's all that should be made, unless it's obvious the cache is missing, such as a landslide at GZ. Even a tree or other structure missing doesn't necessarily mean the cache is missing. Examples; I came to a chopped down tree, but the tree loppers had found the cache and left it by the tree stump. Another, a footbridge had been removed (the cache had been hidden in the structure underneath), but the workmen had found the cache and it was sitting unharmed under a nearby tree. I did message the CO about the bridge cache. But in neither of those cases was the cache missing.

If there had already been several DNFs, and depending on the cache difficulty rating, I would make the DNF and then a NM. Often when I have done this I have been annoyed that others before me hadn't done this already, but many are scared to even do a DNF, until someone else has, so this is not surprising.

 

A NA needs to be held off for at least a month after the DNFs and the NM have continued to be ignored by the CO, and no word from them.

 

 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It will depend on the logs before it, the owner's reputation, and what was written in the OM--does it indicate that the owner confirms that it's there or likely there.

 

Okay, the cache was hidden in 2015 and prior to the DNF has 23 finds and no DNFs, NMs or NAs. The OM in July 2022 confirmed that the trackable the previous finder couldn't locate was indeed missing and had been marked as such. I don't see how the CO's reputation would make any difference on whether a DNF a year after their OM would be likely to be due to a missing cache or not. Caches by even the best COs can still get muggled, washed away or destroyed in landslips or fires.

 

I still think it would be much more helpful to subsequent searchers, COs and even reviewers if people were encouraged to log an OAR (NM) if they thought there was enough evidence the cache was missing to warrant an owner check, rather than being told not to. If the CHS was so good at detecting and reporting missing caches, why are people like MNTA still complaining about wasting time searching for them?

Edited November 28, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+justintim1999]

42 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Agree with the first two. The third one though depends on how many DNFs before you and the cache rating. If you are the first DNF, that's all that should be made, unless it's obvious the cache is missing, such as a landslide at GZ. Even a tree or other structure missing doesn't necessarily mean the cache is missing. Examples; I came to a chopped down tree, but the tree loppers had found the cache and left it by the tree stump. Another, a footbridge had been removed (the cache had been hidden in the structure underneath), but the workmen had found the cache and it was sitting unharmed under a nearby tree. I did message the CO about the bridge cache. But in neither of those cases was the cache missing.

If there had already been several DNFs, and depending on the cache difficulty rating, I would make the DNF and then a NM. Often when I have done this I have been annoyed that others before me hadn't done this already, but many are scared to even do a DNF, until someone else has, so this is not surprising.

 

A NA needs to be held off for at least a month after the DNFs and the NM have continued to be ignored by the CO, and no word from them.

 

 

 

 

 

I have yet to DNF a cache I was 100% sure was missing.    Had many DNFs  I've returned to find within a minute with a big ole slap on the head wondering how I could have missed it the first time.  If we're talking about a cache hidden in a tree in the middle of a desert that has 3 DNFs,  then I'll play along.  I think those situations are few and far between.      Let's be clear.  No one should be scared to post any log that fits the situation.  But If you're going to assume, let's just hope you assume correctly.     

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I have yet to DNF a cache I was 100% sure was missing.

 

I have, on a number of occasions. Most recently, the cache was supposed to be a micro hanging in a tree on the riverbank but all the trees had been removed and replaced by a concrete flood barrier. Then there was the one last year where all that remained of the cache was a lid cable-tied to a branch. People were still logging it as a find so the CHS was never going to pick it up, but I went out on a limb (sorry about the pun) and logged both a DNF and an NA (there'd previously been an unanswered NM). Another time, the cache was in a gully with poor GPS reception so the CO had provided a spoiler photo on the cache page showing exactly where it was hidden. I was able to take a photo showing the same scene, except where his one had a cache in it, mine didn't.

 

But regardless, you don't have to be 100% sure it's missing to log an Owner Attention Requested, you just have to be sufficiently convinced to warrant asking the CO to please do a check. As a CO, I'd much rather get an OAR from someone who thought it needed a check than to have to second-guess from a DNF log. The OAR sets a flag so I won't forget if I'm distracted or away from home when it's logged, whereas DNFs don't, at least until the CHS springs into action.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I have yet to DNF a cache I was 100% sure was missing.    Had many DNFs  I've returned to find within a minute with a big ole slap on the head wondering how I could have missed it the first time.  If we're talking about a cache hidden in a tree in the middle of a desert that has 3 DNFs,  then I'll play along.  I think those situations are few and far between.      Let's be clear.  No one should be scared to post any log that fits the situation.  But If you're going to assume, let's just hope you assume correctly.     

After half a dozen DNFs previously on a 1.5D cache that has had very few or no DNFs before, you can be pretty sure it's missing. I have rarely been wrong when I have made a NM suspecting it to be missing. Other times the NM is for maintenance.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I have yet to DNF a cache I was 100% sure was missing.

I have. I saw exactly where the cache had been hidden, and knew it was gone.

 

Of course, I was wrong. The cache was still there, hidden nearby.

[+CCFwasG]

This comment is in response to something that was said upthread a while back... that there is a "waiting period" for disabling and archiving by reviewers, I think that's correct?

Well check this: https://coord.info/GC4DMXM 

I am not going to comment on who is doing what here unless asked, but some folks in this thread might recognize what I mean. If an NM/OAR goes on a cache, doesn't the CO have some time to check it before it gets a reviewer disabling it? In this case it was THE NEXT DAY. That can't be right? Or maybe it is and every other time I see things like this the reviewer is slow??

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Well check this: https://coord.info/GC4DMXM 

 

I was surprised to see that one of the finders also logged a DNF on it the following day. I didn't think that was possible, but it looks like the new logging page allows you to DNF a cache you've already found. So you found it but you didn't find it???

[Keystone]

13 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Well check this: https://coord.info/GC4DMXM 

 

There's no hard and fast rule about how caches come to a Reviewer's attention, nor for how quickly the Reviewer must act / how long the Reviewer must wait.

 

In this case I see a reported problem on August 6th, confirmed by several additional visitors, leading to the cache being disabled on November 24th.

[+CCFwasG]

13 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

There's no hard and fast rule about how caches come to a Reviewer's attention, nor for how quickly the Reviewer must act / how long the Reviewer must wait.

 

In this case I see a reported problem on August 6th, confirmed by several additional visitors, leading to the cache being disabled on November 24th.

 

Did not know a basic DNF counts as a "reported problem" (regardless of content). Interesting.

[+Team Canary]

14 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

 

Did not know a basic DNF counts as a "reported problem" (regardless of content). Interesting.

 

The last four Found It logs indicate a problem. All could and should have done Owner Attention Requested.

[+justintim1999]

12 hours ago, niraD said:

I have. I saw exactly where the cache had been hidden, and knew it was gone.

 

Of course, I was wrong. The cache was still there, hidden nearby.

Me too.   Coordinates off,  GPS bounce.....all reasons why, in most cases,  I'm never 100% sure a cache is missing. 

[+justintim1999]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But regardless, you don't have to be 100% sure it's missing to log an Owner Attention Requested, you just have to be sufficiently convinced to warrant asking the CO to please do a check.

Kind of like guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.    All kidding aside, I'm sure that in most cases asking a CO to check up on their cache is warranted based on previous logs.  You would hope the cache owner is reading the same logs you are and would voluntarily take a look.    Not sure if we're going off into the weeds again but i think if you use the logs as intended and take a 2nd look before posting a NM or NA, things will work out just fine. 

[+kunarion]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

I have. I saw exactly where the cache had been hidden, and knew it was gone.

 

Of course, I was wrong. The cache was still there, hidden nearby.

 

That happens to me.  Most recently, there was a perfectly box-shaped depression in pine straw in the only "stump" in a cache area.  I mentioned the shape.  But I don't make an NM along with my DNF due to the cache still being there just fine, as it was in this case.

Even though it turned out that a half dozen caches by the same CO and along the same trail were in fact missing.  I was 100% certain it was also gone.  Maybe even 110%.

 

My DNF was enough to cause the CO to go check, which is also the way I Owner my caches.  If it's been proven easy to find (which a lot of mine are), a DNF means to me, "go check on it".   In any case, I never require a NM.  If there's an issue, I address it before it becomes a big issue.

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by kunarion

[+CCFwasG]

12 hours ago, Team Canary said:

 

The last four Found It logs indicate a problem. All could and should have done Owner Attention Requested.

I wasn't saying the cache didn't have a problem or need OAR etc., only that it interested me that a DNF log was taken as something more. Originally, in any case, I was only pointing out that it got hit with disabling way way faster than most do. That's all. And I posed a question, which Keystone answered.

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

I was only pointing out that it got hit with disabling way way faster than most do.

Right, because as keystone pointed out, it's not a "rule", but it's generally the process by which most reviewers act because it seems the most reasonable. Individual case by case situations may easily differ. And as also mentioned reputation may play a role in decisions as well. A problem-CO who always fights or makes excuses may simply have earned a shorter fuse from their local reviewers. Lots of variability here. Point is, reviewers still are human judges on every individual case.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Kind of like guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.    All kidding aside, I'm sure that in most cases asking a CO to check up on their cache is warranted based on previous logs.  You would hope the cache owner is reading the same logs you are and would voluntarily take a look.    Not sure if we're going off into the weeds again but i think if you use the logs as intended and take a 2nd look before posting a NM or NA, things will work out just fine. 

 

A lot of the caches I do don't get found very often, so any previous logs may well have been prior to the cache going missing. The tree cache that's now a flood barrier was last logged a year before my visit, while the one with the spoiler photo had been found a month earlier but other evidence around GZ (freshly painted graffiti and dropped chip packets) suggested the muggling had happened just days before my visit.

 

It's much the same with my own hides. The one that recently had the DNF log just saying "DNF" was last logged in 2022 and has had just one find since, so anyone wanting me to do a check won't have much in the way of past logs to go by. A lot can happen between searches, particularly with all the wild weather we've been having in recent years.

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A lot of the caches I do don't get found very often, so any previous logs may well have been prior to the cache going missing. The tree cache that's now a flood barrier was last logged a year before my visit, while the one with the spoiler photo had been found a month earlier but other evidence around GZ (freshly painted graffiti and dropped chip packets) suggested the muggling had happened just days before my visit.

 

It's much the same with my own hides. The one that recently had the DNF log just saying "DNF" was last logged in 2022 and has had just one find since, so anyone wanting me to do a check won't have much in the way of past logs to go by. A lot can happen between searches, particularly with all the wild weather we've been having in recent years.

I had one in the burnt out hole of a large tree.   Someone posted a dnf so I went out to find the tree had finally fallen.  I'm sure the cache was there under the rubble somewhere.   Although the tree was about 4 foot around and looked to be solid as a rock, I'm glad no one was in the area when it came down.   Wonder if it made a sound?

Edited November 28, 2023 by justintim1999

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

I had one in the burnt out hole of a large tree.   Someone posted a dnf so I went out to find the tree had finally fallen.  I'm sure the cache was there under the rubble somewhere.   Although the tree was about 4 foot around and looked to be solid as a rock, I'm glad no one was in the area when it came down. 

 

I have a similar story about a cache inside a sea cave. I'd gone out to check on it six weeks earlier and everything was fine, but then I got a message from a friend saying he couldn't find it and asking for help. I sent him a photo with a pointer showing where to look, to which he replied "it doesn't look like that now". A large piece of the roof had come down and buried the cache under what is probably several tonnes of rubble. A bit scary as I'd been sitting there just six weeks earlier and, when I looked more carefully at the photos I'd taken and compared them to the ones from when I placed the cache, there'd already been some smaller rocks starting to fall. I archived it after that.

[+colleda]

Here is one I re-found today. It had a few issues including soggy logs and rusty mint tin throwdown. Despite one NM a bit over a year ago, and a little cache creep, it remains a viable cache. The original, which is still there, was a fake sprinkler.

On Thin Ice Traditional Geocache

GC2EP8E

[+MNTA]

13 hours ago, colleda said:

Here is one I re-found today. It had a few issues including soggy logs and rusty mint tin throwdown. Despite one NM a bit over a year ago, and a little cache creep, it remains a viable cache. The original, which is still there, was a fake sprinkler.

On Thin Ice Traditional Geocache

GC2EP8E

Take it up with GS because they definitely don't agree with you. 

 

Cache hidden 2010. 

Co Joined 12/13/2009Last Visited 01/11/2020

 

Looks abandoned by all the rules for cache placement.

 

Former logs:

Cache needs maintenance badly! I couldn’t write on the log book properly. Paper so wet.

 

Found both containers, 1 has no lid and is drenched through, signed log that was dry, TFTC

 

So the second container was probably a throwdown. But even that has issues. Logs show issues back to 2022. You need a responsible owner to take care of any and all issues.

 

The area has plenty of caches and is regularly frequented by finders. My guess is in a year or two another cache will replace this one, hopefully sooner. 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

The area has plenty of caches and is regularly frequented by finders. My guess is in a year or two another cache will replace this one, hopefully sooner. 

 

One less fake sprinkler head in the caching world would probably be a good thing too .

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One less fake sprinkler head in the caching world would probably be a good thing too .

After one experience with a sprinkler I sort of agree. In this case though, it was a real sprinkler I dismantled...oops . There was a spring and because of that uncooperative curly springy wire it took AGES to put back together, but finally I managed, and  fortunately the water didn't come on, or I would have run 🫨, dripping wet no doubt, and left it. The next finder tried the same sprinkler, and wrote they couldn't get it back together. The CO added in the description, it's not the sprinkler. So if your ever see a sprinkler shooting a straight lot of water, think, is there a cache somewhere there .

I never did find that cache.

[+CCFwasG]

On 11/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, justintim1999 said:

I had one in the burnt out hole of a large tree.   Someone posted a dnf so I went out to find the tree had finally fallen.  I'm sure the cache was there under the rubble somewhere.   Although the tree was about 4 foot around and looked to be solid as a rock, I'm glad no one was in the area when it came down.   Wonder if it made a sound?

 

I have one in a hole in a dead tree. A few months ago we had a storm that took out a lot of similar trees. I went to check mine - half the tree had come down (happily in the adjacent field not on the road) and the cache was totally intact & ok! (And luckily the tree went down the way it did or it might have drawn attention to the hide! 

 

On 11/30/2023 at 4:47 AM, Goldenwattle said:

After one experience with a sprinkler I sort of agree. In this case though, it was a real sprinkler I dismantled...oops . There was a spring and because of that uncooperative curly springy wire it took AGES to put back together, but finally I managed, and  fortunately the water didn't come on, or I would have run 🫨, dripping wet no doubt, and left it. The next finder tried the same sprinkler, and wrote they couldn't get it back together. The CO added in the description, it's not the sprinkler. So if your ever see a sprinkler shooting a straight lot of water, think, is there a cache somewhere there .

I never did find that cache.

 

I had to decide whether to put NM on a cache in a sprinkler head recently. Problem was it WAS a real sprinkler head, not attached to a water source, but almost impossible to figure out how to open and even then to get it open! If a cache really doesn't work properly, should it get NM? (ie OAR or whatever)