BLUE FACES GALORE

[+RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI]

Geocaching has on occasion sent me a survey that tends to be focused on how their newest "caching game" is motivating me to find caches. WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE ME IS NOT BE ABLE TO FIND A STRING OR A TRAIL OF CACHES WITHOUT SEVERAL HAVING MULTIPLE BLUE FACES and the DNFS are by experienced cachers. I incorrectly thought that geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row----a Reviewer told me that is not correct---but I think it should be!!! Geocaching wants to keep the game fresh and cachers enthused, well then it needs to find a solution to strings of DNFS. Cachers don't want to call for an Archive for various reasons. The Rav & I have not searched for the cache, and so I certainly can't call for an Archive.........but with a string of Blue Faces I'm not going to look for it. Does anyone else agree that there is an issue? Part of the appeal to me of geocaching, is to park the vehicle and walk and find caches----that might be there to be found. Maybe this needs to be posted in a different place.... Looking for some guidance and suggestions on how to solve this problem.

[+kunarion]

23 minutes ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

Geocaching has on occasion sent me a survey that tends to be focused on how their newest "caching game" is motivating me to find caches. WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE ME IS NOT BE ABLE TO FIND A STRING OR A TRAIL OF CACHES WITHOUT SEVERAL HAVING MULTIPLE BLUE FACES and the DNFS are by experienced cachers. I incorrectly thought that geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row----a Reviewer told me that is not correct---but I think it should be!!! Geocaching wants to keep the game fresh and cachers enthused, well then it needs to find a solution to strings of DNFS. Cachers don't want to call for an Archive for various reasons. The Rav & I have not searched for the cache, and so I certainly can't call for an Archive.........but with a string of Blue Faces I'm not going to look for it. Does anyone else agree that there is an issue? Part of the appeal to me of geocaching, is to park the vehicle and walk and find caches----that might be there to be found. Maybe this needs to be posted in a different place.... Looking for some guidance and suggestions on how to solve this problem.

 

Sometimes I'm the one who logged the 3 DNFs in a row.  If I did not find it, a Did Not Find log may be appropriate.  But if it's proving to be hard to find, and if you want to find a cache, skip the DNF one for now.  If the issue is that you arrive to be surprised by a string of DNFs, try an App that shows the icons for the last few logs.  Or look at the cache page.

 

If you mean that you know it must be missing because people cachers haven't found it, I've seen strings of BLUE FACES get ever longer because cachers expect it must be missing.  When it's not.  Sometimes I go ahead and find it just fine.

Edited March 5 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

I incorrectly thought that geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row----a Reviewer told me that is not correct---but I think it should be!!!

 

The algorithm you're referring to is the Cache Health Score (see this Help Centre page), but it's not as simple as just 3 DNFs and you're out as that would be problematic for more difficult caches that are expected to get a fair number of DNFs. According to the Help Centre, "positive" logs (Found It and Owner Maintenance) boost a cache's health score, while "negative" logs (DNF, OAR and RAR) reduce its score. If the score then drops below a threshold based on the cache's D/T rating (and possibly other factors), an email is sent to the CO and it raises a flag for the reviewer who can step in if the owner doesn't respond.
 

Because DNFs can happen for all sorts of reasons beyond a cache being missing (clever camo, failing light, approaching storms, grumpy kids, muggles at GZ, a snake blocking the way or just simply looking in the wrong place), it's always going to be hit and miss, with some caches that are missing not being picked up while others that are fine getting caught in the net. In my opinion, it's far better if the community uses the available Owner Attention Requested (formerly NM) and, if that fails to get a response from the owner, Reviewer Attention Requested (formerly NA) logs as those are going to be a lot better focussed on problem caches than any DNF-counting algorithm. Don't be afraid to use those logs, as responsible cache owners will generally appreciate being given a heads-up on any problems with their caches, and the community will appreciate missing caches being brought to the attention of the reviewers in a timely manner.

Edited March 6 by barefootjeff

[+kunarion]

30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

responsible cache owners will generally appreciate being given a heads-up on any problems with their caches, and the community will appreciate missing caches being brought to the attention of the reviewers in a timely manner.

 

I may not run out and check my cache due to a string of surprise DNFs, because frankly I'm embarrassed when a CO does that on their cache after MY string of DNFs (and pronounces it in place just fine).  I didn't mean there is a problem, all I meant was that I Did Not Find it.

 

I often add special information to my DNF log.  How long I searched, where I searched, how the search spot compared to the cache description and hint, things like that.  If it's in fact experienced cachers not finding it, they are the ones de-motivating the OP (OK, ultimately, it's inattentive Cache Owners), it's not the Reviewers.

 

I'd enjoy the opportunity to check out a suddenly un-findable cache.  Unless it's just plain in a terrible place and a crappy Micro, in which case, um... that's motivating?!  But when it becomes time for the Reviewer to deal with it, there may next be no cache listing to motivate cachers.  So if it's missing, them experience Geocachers who made a BLUE FACE need to step up and do a little more than a DNF.

 

Edited March 6 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

11 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I often add some information to my DNF log.  How long I searched, where I searched, how the search spot compared to the cache description and hint, things like that.  If it's in fact experienced cachers not finding it, they are the ones de-motivating the OP (OK, ultimately, it's inattentive Cache Owners), it's not the Reviewers.

 

Yes, as a CO I really appreciate a detailed DNF. Ones that just say "didn't find it" (or even less) aren't very helpful. The more information about the unsuccessful search, ideally with photos, the better, although that can be a bit tricky with non-traditional caches to avoid spoiling the final location.

Edited March 6 by barefootjeff

[+CAVinoGal]

39 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In my opinion, it's far better if the community uses the available Owner Attention Requested (formerly NM) and, if that fails to get a response from the owner, Reviewer Attention Requested (formerly NA) logs as those are going to be a lot better focussed on problem caches than any DNF-counting algorithm. Don't be afraid to use those logs, as responsible cache owners will generally appreciate being given a heads-up on any problems with their caches, and the community will appreciate missing caches being brought to the attention of the reviewers in a timely manner.

 

21 minutes ago, kunarion said:

So if it's missing, them experience Geocachers who made a BLUE FACE need to step up and do a little more than a DNF.

 

If we are searching for a cache with a few DNF's, and we don't find it either, then I'll log the OAR (formerly NM) in addition to my DNF, hopefully prompting a visit from the CO to confirm the cache is there or replace it if it is not.  After a couple of DNF's on our own hides, we will check on it, and log a note or OM to verify the cache is findable.

 

The string of DNF's with no reviewer intervention is ultimately in the hands of the CO, who *should* go check on the cache, or in the hands of the last few DNFers who didn't log the OAR to further prompt the CO to check up on his/her cache.  Algorithms are not perfect, and relying on them to keep the "gameboard" in good working order is not a good plan - honest, informative logs, and responsible cache owners will do a much better job of keeping things playable, and keeping you motivated to go find things!!

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

Looking for some guidance and suggestions on how to solve this problem.

 

GSAK.

 

Load the caches you might find from a PQ then filter out the ones with recent DNFs. Export the DNF-free GPX to your Garmin and/or save as a bookmark list to toggle on in the app.

[+kunarion]

25 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

GSAK.

 

Load the caches you might find from a PQ then filter out the ones with recent DNFs. Export the DNF-free GPX to your Garmin and/or save as a bookmark list to toggle on in the app.

 

True.  But it occurs to me that the Op isn't asking how to trim the hunt down to a handful of viable caches, but how to fill the trail with motivating caches.  Which is a legitimate question.  What's the value of occupying cache spots along a trail with pill bottles that are absent and Cache Owners that are equally absent?  Yet if the caches officially go away, the spots won't automatically become fresh caches, so, yeah, filtering.  That's about the size of it.

 

Edited March 6 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

23 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

GSAK.

 

Load the caches you might find from a PQ then filter out the ones with recent DNFs. Export the DNF-free GPX to your Garmin and/or save as a bookmark list to toggle on in the app.

 

That's fine, I suppose, but in doing that you might miss out on some fun experiences. In early January, I joined a group of four other cachers to attempt some boat-access caches along the Hawkesbury River. At one of them, the youngest of our team climbed up into the sandstone cave, searching as many of the honeycombed cavities as he could see into. After some fifteen minutes, his dad climbed up to help while the rest of us scoured the grass and bushes around the cave's base in case it had fallen out. In the end we had no luck and all logged DNFs, so at that point the cache had 5 DNFs in a row. "Surely it must be missing!" I hear everyone shouting, but no, the CO subsequently went out there to check and the cache was right where he'd hidden it. He even added a fairly explicit spoiler photo with his OM log so hopefully on our next boating trip we'll be able redeem those DNFs and convert them into finds.

 

Looking down the list of my own hides in the Cache Owner Dashboard, I see two have DNFs in their three most recent logs. This is one of them:

 

and this is the other:

 

 

There's not much I can do as CO to remedy either of those situations, although I've visited both caches since and everything's fine with the brown snake and the Mothers' Day revellers having long gone.

 

I guess if everyone filtered out caches that have had a recent DNF, those caches would never get found again and might just as well be archived.

[+MNTA]

5 hours ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

Geocaching has on occasion sent me a survey that tends to be focused on how their newest "caching game" is motivating me to find caches. WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE ME IS NOT BE ABLE TO FIND A STRING OR A TRAIL OF CACHES WITHOUT SEVERAL HAVING MULTIPLE BLUE FACES and the DNFS are by experienced cachers. I incorrectly thought that geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row----a Reviewer told me that is not correct---but I think it should be!!! Geocaching wants to keep the game fresh and cachers enthused, well then it needs to find a solution to strings of DNFS. Cachers don't want to call for an Archive for various reasons. The Rav & I have not searched for the cache, and so I certainly can't call for an Archive.........but with a string of Blue Faces I'm not going to look for it. Does anyone else agree that there is an issue? Part of the appeal to me of geocaching, is to park the vehicle and walk and find caches----that might be there to be found. Maybe this needs to be posted in a different place.... Looking for some guidance and suggestions on how to solve this problem.

 

100% agree. For me I moved about 15 miles to a new state and now it seems every time I go out I find problems = no fun. The new reviewer is definitely not on top of things which is extremely disappointing. Filed a OAR on a cache a couple of month ago. CO is inactive and the four finds after mine all flag the same problem. So filed a RAR two weeks ago and still no action.  A quick search shows about 10% of caches have the maintenance flag set.

 

The cache closest to my home which I enjoyed a nice walk to with the dogs, I'm fairly confident that its missing, checked it twice and there are now two DNFs on a 1/1 cache and now no finds in two months after regular finds. But no action by owner or reviewer. Disappointing. 

 

Now I don't expect to always make a find. I've avenged DNFs more times than I can count. But when problems exist I'd like to see action. 

 

Sad to admit I'll now check for DNFs before going out of my way to get to a cache. I also will admit I'd rather the algorithms over flag issues in order to help ensure a positive experience.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

For a D1.5 three DNFs should be enough to trigger the cache for a reviewer to look at it. More DNFs should be needed for more difficult caches. The reviewer can see what sort of comments there were to explain the DNFs and whether a warning log should be made for the CO to check the cache. People turning away for whatever reason and not searching is not necessarily a reason for a warning log, unless maybe the T is also 1.5 and the logs say it was too physically difficult (huge tree climb, etc). A notice on the cache should be made if all the DNFs were from reasonably experienced geocachers who said they gave a good search. At 1.5D a correctly rated cache should not get as many DNFs. Either the cache is missing, or it's incorrectly rated, but if 1.5D it should then have a warning put on it to fix whatever the problem is. Leaving a low rated cache with three DNFs means that many won't even bother to search for it.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

A notice on the cache should be made if all the DNFs were from reasonably experienced geocachers who said they gave a good search. At 1.5D a correctly rated cache should not get as many DNFs.

 

I've been caching for just over 12 years now with a bit over 2000 finds, so I guess I'm reasonably experienced, however a couple of weeks ago I DNFed a 1/1.5 traditional. The description and hint said it was a magnetic micro and the only steel near GZ was a disused railway line, so naturally I focussed my search along the tracks. I was there for probably about 20 minutes until Mrs Busybody from across the road came over to see what I was up to. At that point my frustration was nearing overload point so I decided to call it quits on that one and move along to the next in the series, also a magnetic micro on the train tracks. That one I found, initially by touch, in just a few minutes, so maybe having seen the style of container I'd have been successful if I'd gone back to the first one, or maybe not. That cache has since had another 6 finds and my DNF is the only one out of a grand total of 14 finds, so it probably says more about my ability to find magnetic micros than it does about the cache or its D/T rating.

 

Yesterday I logged another DNF, this time a 2.5/1.5 multi. Finding the information at the listed coordinates took me longer than it should have, then with the final coordinates calculated and loaded, I searched in vain for the fake rock container (which I can usually spot pretty quickly) for about another ten minutes, before becoming concerned that I was drawing too much attention to myself in a fairly public place (the grounds of a cathedral) and called it quits. Within seconds of logging my DNF when I got home, I got a message from the CO who asked me a few questions about where I was looking and said they'd check it when next in the area. The log before mine was also a DNF saying they did a pretty thorough search so maybe that one really has gone missing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it had been right there in front of my nose the whole time.

 

Two other caches I found yesterday could have just as easily been DNFs too. On one, a 2.5/1 traditional, my intial searching proved fruitless so I moved to a different spot where I could view the hiding place from another angle and spotted the clever camo. Fortunately there were few muggles around as it's also in a very exposed public place. At the other one, a 3.5/1 puzzle cache micro, there were a lot of possible hiding places but my GPSr kept saying zero metres at one particular spot and that's where I found it. Not surprising I guess as its owner has a reputation for very accurate coordinates. Again it was in a fairly public place and I was lucky there were few muggles about apart from a couple of young men playing tennis who I thought would be too busy with their game to pay me much attention. On a sunny weekend it would no doubt be a different story and DNFs due to muggle presence would be a real likelihood there.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that with a lot of caches, particularly urban micros, chance plays a big role in whether a search ends in a find or a DNF, regardless of its D/T rating. Muggles don't look at the ratings before deciding to gather at GZ, and even without them I can still be a Blind Freddy on a D1 when my preconception is different from reality.

[Keystone]

13 hours ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

I incorrectly thought that geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row----a Reviewer told me that is not correct---but I think it should be!!!

The Cache Health Score algorithm is a bit more nuanced than that.  Three DNF's in a row is very different on a Difficulty 1 cache than it is on a Difficulty 4 cache.

 

But, because of the Cache Health Score functionality introduced several years ago, both cache owners and (later) Reviewers do become aware of caches which may have maintenance issues.  Using the Reviewer tools provided to me by Geocaching HQ, I take action against caches with lots of DNF logs each and every week, when the cache owner has failed to do so.

[+dimwit61]

For me, if I have not been able to do much of a search for whatever reason (muggles, a bus leaving in 3 minutes, impatient family members) I don't log a DNF but instead write a note. I don't want to affect the health score of a cache in which I put very little effort into searching and have every reason to believe it is still there. 

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess if everyone filtered out caches that have had a recent DNF, those caches would never get found again and might just as well be archived.

 

That's the thing: everyone won't filter them out. Some will seek them specifically because they've been unfound for awhile. And the CO will (or should) check on their cache after a reasonable amount of time with no finds and/or an reasonable number of DNFs. If there's an Owner Maintenance log then it's not filtered out.

[+CAVinoGal]

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

For a D1.5 three DNFs should be enough to trigger the cache for a reviewer to look at it.

For me, as a CO, this would be enough for ME to check it out.  Depending on distance and my schedule, I would more likely check it after 1 or 2 DNF's.  

 

Back to the fix for the OP (  Hello there!)  logging the OAR (Owner Attention Requested) or RAR (Reviewer Attention Requested) will start the process for, hopefully, a fix, but more likely eventual archival, and potentially a new cache, refreshing the gameboard.  But it IS a process that takes time.  And folks seem reluctant to post those type logs.  So here we are with trails of DNF's...  Our last cache outing we looked for 5, and logged a DNF on 3 of those, plus the OAR on one of them.  I will log the OAR or RAR if I feel it is warranted!

[+Bear and Ragged]

18 hours ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

... geocaching had a program that alerted a Reviewer if a cache had 3 or more DNFS in a row...

So, a group of 4 cachers go out for the day, decide that they will give each cache 5 minutes and then move on to the next cache....

For what ever reason, they don't find the cache, each logs a DNF.

 

IF I DNF a cache I do try to leave a reason... Too Many muggles around, lack of time etc.

[+Bear and Ragged]

18 hours ago, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE ME IS NOT BE ABLE TO FIND A STRING OR A TRAIL OF CACHES WITHOUT SEVERAL HAVING MULTIPLE BLUE FACES and the DNFS are by experienced cachers.

 

Sometimes a 'string' of DNFs will stop even experienced cachers from doing a complete search. The cache may still be there, just maybe not replaced in the correct place...

[+barefootjeff]

14 hours ago, MNTA said:

A quick search shows about 10% of caches have the maintenance flag set.

 

That also means 90% of caches don't. Looking at it that way, that's good, isn't it? A quick search locally shows a similar percentage with an outstanding OAR, but digging a little deeper reveals that many of those are historical NMs that either turned out not to affect the cache or were resolved but just not cleared with an OM. Of the remainder, most look to be about wet logs, perhaps not surprising given how much rain and flooding there's been around here in recent years. Caches that are actually missing do seem to get cleared from the game board by either the CHS or RAR logs, although that process can be slow if the cache is rarely attempted.

 

The wet log caches, often with multiple OARs, still get plenty of Found It logs so those keep the CHS's health score above the threshold and they won't come to the reviewer's attention unless someone logs a RAR. Perhaps the CHS needs to give more weight to outstanding OARs, especially when there are more than one.

[+Goldenwattle]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

it was a magnetic micro and the only steel near GZ was a disused railway line,

I have yet to come upon a real 1.5D railway line hidden cache. They might have claimed to be 1.5D, but all those I have encountered are actually harder than their rating. Long grass, lengths of track with no idea of how accurate the rating is. Two tracks, several sides to tracks. On the either side or under it. Might not be on the track. They have metal pins. Could attached to one of those. That's what I meant by wrongly rated caches.

 

7 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

So, a group of 4 cachers go out for the day, decide that they will give each cache 5 minutes and then move on to the next cache....

For what ever reason, they don't find the cache, each logs a DNF.

They each logged DNFs, as they should do. Five minutes should be plenty of time to find a properly rated 1.5D. A true 1.5D I would expect to find in under a minute. This rightly should trigger a message to the reviewer. Five people searching together for five minutes, compared to five single people each spending five minutes alone searching, has a greater chance of finding the cache, as five people together can each concentrate better on different areas and cover more ground. So more a reason for the trigger to work after groups fail to find the cache.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have yet to come upon a real 1.5D railway line hidden cache. They might have claimed to be 1.5D, but all those I have encountered are actually harder than their rating. Long grass, lengths of track with no idea of how accurate the rating is. Two tracks, several sides to tracks. On the either side or under it. Might not be on the track. They have metal pins. Could attached to one of those. That's what I meant by wrongly rated caches.

 

Curiously, the other five caches in that series were rated 1.5D and I found them quite quickly, but the one I DNFed was 1D with the description saying "This cache is super easy". That phrase is almosr sure to result in me DNFing it.

[+Goldenwattle]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

rated 1.5D

This was rated 1.5D. There is a rail line under there & a cache... somewhere, along with blackberry. I DNFed it, along with five others after me. I left bleeding. - 1.5T🤣🤣🤣🙄😢.  No message from the reviewer on a 1.5 D&T rated cache after six DNFs. How many does it take! Finally archived by the CO.

 

Edited March 7 by Goldenwattle

[+garretslarrity]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:31 PM, RAVIOLInSPAGHETTI said:

Looking for some guidance and suggestions on how to solve this problem.

 

The best thing you can do to solve this problem is to log Owner Attention Requested and Reviewer Attention Requested logs. A handful of DNFs is not a bad thing on a difficult and well-maintained cache (difficult caches are and should be part of the game), but if you see a string of consecutive DNFs on an easy cache that rarely had DNFs before, that's a good time to log an Owner Attention Requested asking the CO to go check on it. Remember that one of the reasons HQ renamed it from "Needs Maintenance" was to encourage its use more often for cases like this.

 

And then if you do so and there's no response from the CO after a while, that's when you'll want to log a Reviewer Attention Requested. You'll especially want to do this if the CO is inactive or doesn't seem interested in maintaining their caches. If the Cache Health Score didn't first flag that cache to them, the RAR log will immediately notify them, and then your Reviewer will make the call on whether or not to Temporarily Disable that cache.

 

While the Reviewers do a fine job of addressing concerns when they come to them, it's up to us players to bring these issues to the attention of first the CO, and then, if necessary, the Reviewer. If you live in an area where the game has long been developed, cleaning up the gameboard is an important part of playing. In my area (Southern California), we need this badly. So many old caches are not properly maintained, many with inactive COs. But what makes it so much worse is the fact that my area has a lot of people who think throwdowns are okay. Ugh. So when that happens they kick the can down the road, or worse they throw down something that doesn't match the hint or description, creating a poor experience for future finders. For all these reasons, I've made it a point lately to be more aggressive with the OAR and RAR logs. We need to refresh the gameboard, and those are the best tools to do it.

[Keystone]

On 3/6/2025 at 8:20 AM, Keystone said:

Using the Reviewer tools provided to me by Geocaching HQ, I take action against caches with lots of DNF logs each and every week, when the cache owner has failed to do so.

Yesterday I disabled more than 60 caches that had multiple DNFs and/or Owner Attention Requested logs and/or other reports of problems.  Many of these ought to have been brought to my attention through "Reviewer Attention Requested" logs.  The tools are there - but people need to use them!  It's more time-consuming for me to search for them, which I do through GSAK with a macro.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Keystone said:

Yesterday I disabled more than 60 caches that had multiple DNFs and/or Owner Attention Requested logs and/or other reports of problems.  Many of these ought to have been brought to my attention through "Reviewer Attention Requested" logs.  The tools are there - but people need to use them!  It's more time-consuming for me to search for them, which I do through GSAK with a macro.

I thought that lots of DNFs was meant to bring a notice to the reviewer. (I do often log NM & NAs)

[Keystone]

The Cache Health Score is not perfect.  For example, it cannot distinguish a legitimate "Found it" log from logs like the following:

 

[Found it]  As others have said, there is nothing left here except a wire that we think the cache was hanging on.

[Found it]  No sign of a cache here.

[Found it]  There is only a lid here - no log to sign.

 

The Cache Health Score is, appropriately, more generous to a cache with a high Difficulty rating, which is expected to attract DNF logs in between finds.  But some DNF logs are more important than others, like these examples:

 

[Didn't find it]  The landowner confronted me and asked me to take the cache with me.  He did not want a geocache on his property.

[Didn't find it]  The entire woods has been clear-cut.  There is nothing left but stumps.

 

I catch caches like this through a manual review process.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

[Didn't find it]  The landowner confronted me and asked me to take the cache with me.  He did not want a geocache on his property.

[Didn't find it]  The entire woods has been clear-cut.  There is nothing left but stumps.

I understand that. However I have seen caches with a row of proper DNFs and still nothing done. An example. It was the CO who finally archived this one. How many DNFs are needed to trigger a cache? 1.5D&T, so not a high rated one, and too low a terrain rating to expect the finder to need a machete to access it.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9ETCN

Edited March 17 by Goldenwattle

[Keystone]

33 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I understand that. However I have seen caches with a row of proper DNFs and still nothing done. An example. It was the CO who finally archived this one. How many DNFs are needed to trigger a cache? 1.5D&T, so not a high rated one, and too low a terrain rating to expect the finder to need a machete to access it.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9ETCN

That Cache Owner received a "cache health score" email alert on February 5th, 2024, which helps explain why the CO self-archived the cache on February 13th, 2024.  Typically a Reviewer will hold back for awhile (for me, it's 10 to 14 days) after the cache health score crosses the threshold.  I would have looked at this cache on or after February 15th, 2024, if the owner hadn't already taken action.  So, bad example for the point you're trying to make.

 

As for your question about how many DNFs of a 1.5/1.5 cache does it take before the cache health score falls below the threshold, the answer is, "it depends."  Other factors include, but are not limited to, how new the cache is, how close together the DNFs are, whether there are any Owner Maintenance logs, whether there are intervening finds between DNFs, and the length of time since the last find.  Every cache moves towards the triggering threshold at its own pace, based on all aspects of a complex algorithm.

[+Goldenwattle]

53 minutes ago, Keystone said:

That Cache Owner received a "cache health score" email alert on February 5th, 2024, which helps explain why the CO self-archived the cache on February 13th, 2024.  Typically a Reviewer will hold back for awhile (for me, it's 10 to 14 days) after the cache health score crosses the threshold.  I would have looked at this cache on or after February 15th, 2024, if the owner hadn't already taken action.  So, bad example for the point you're trying to make.

Thank you for explaining that.

However, that action is kept secret, as no one else can see that "a "cache health score" email alert" has been made. We just are left to believe it's being ignored. Maybe it would help if an automatic log was added to the cache page also without disabling the cache yet, or a small under review symbol somewhere on the page, so those of us in the dark, can see the system works. That's not down to the reviewers though, that's down to the programmers. 

"So, bad example for the point you're trying to make." How can I know that with not being able to see what happens in the background.

 

Edited March 17 by Goldenwattle

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe it would help if an automatic log was added to the cache page also without disabling the cache yet, or a small under review symbol somewhere on the page, so those of us in the dark, can see the system works.

 

We, in the dark, neither are supposed to know what happens under the hood nor supervise the process.

[+kunarion]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Thank you for explaining that.

However, that action is kept secret, as no one else can see that "a "cache health score" email alert" has been made. We just are left to believe it's being ignored. Maybe it would help if an automatic log was added to the cache page also without disabling the cache yet, or a small under review symbol somewhere on the page, so those of us in the dark, can see the system works. That's not down to the reviewers though, that's down to the programmers. 

"So, bad example for the point you're trying to make." How can I know that with not being able to see what happens in the background.

 

 

Some of the software and Apps show the last few logs as icons, for an indication of "the last 4 were DNF" or whatever, at a glance.  That doesn't show if emails were sent, but look at the cache page.  If there's no obvious reason for a string of DNFs (there could be a bunch of reasons even with a viable cache), maybe sit that one out until something promising occurs.

 

I check on all of my caches all the time, and wouldn't keep them if I did it any other way.  Blue Face or not.  But I'm also bad at finding caches (much worse than you may know), so when I log a DNF, I also add context... but when the CO next runs out there and logs, "It's exactly where it belongs, obvious, plain as day, impossible to NOT find, so easy a cave dragon could do it, two-year-olds find it, there's a flashing neon arrow pointing to it, for cryin out loud!!"... I wish I could explain how bad I am at this, that it's just me, not the cache... so when I see a DNF or four on my cache, I may not say anything on the cache page.  I have at times offered through the Message Center to help. Discretely. Because if I'm embarrassed by the extra unnecessary work and personalized log that a CO does after my DNF, others could be, too.  I'd reply to an Reviewer email.

 

But yeah, Cache Owners, take at least some action if something seems to be wrong.

 

Edited March 17 by kunarion

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, kunarion said:

I have at times offered through the Message Center to help.

I often do that. At least with established geocachers. You do DNFs, so you would get my help in finding it.

People have to do a DNF first though. No DNF, no help, even if they ask. So the message asking for help something like, "I've searched several times without finding it", gets a reply such as, "I haven't seen your DNF, or I might have offered help already." They replied that they don't do DNFs. My reply, "Then I don't do help."

I did get told off once for giving some help. Some people can be strange, and ungrateful.