Trigger Point for "... might need some attention ..." Emails

[+ecanderson]

I know it's been discussed before, but it seems not much has changed.  The algorithm that creates a trigger point for requiring an "Owner Maintenance" log is still less than optimal.  It appears not to incorporate the number of finds in DNF logs.  A couple of DNF logs on a 2.0D cache by finders with 10 finds each vs. 10,000 finds each appear to be given equal weight.

 

This sequence generated an email:

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I know it's been discussed before, but it seems not much has changed.  The algorithm that creates a trigger point for requiring an "Owner Maintenance" log is still less than optimal.  It appears not to incorporate the number of finds in DNF logs.  A couple of DNF logs on a 2.0D cache by finders with 10 finds each vs. 10,000 finds each appear to be given equal weight.

 

Apart from being better able to spot some of the more common camos, such as a fake rock, I don't think my DNF rate is significantly lower now than it was when I only had a dozen or so finds under my belt. In fact, last week I almost DNFed a fake rock cache, mainly because it was getting dark, starting to rain and the hint implied something different (a brick), but after the nearby event, one of the attendees who'd found it earlier pointed it out to me.

 

Anyway, most of the DNFs I get on my hides aren't due to the cache being missing or hard to spot, they're more like this one:

 

 

That one was by someone with about a hundred finds, but I don't think the presence of snakes has much to do with the searcher's find count. Unless the algorithm starts incorporating AI to read and interpret the actual content of the DNF logs, it's always going to be hit and miss.

[+ecanderson]

Here is another that is more or less typical of what happens, but this is a D4.0 cache, and I think I've rated it fairly.  This is what led up to that trigger.  The finds delta in results is even more obvious for this one:

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Here is another that is more or less typical of what happens, but this is a D4.0 cache, and I think I've rated it fairly.  This is what led up to that trigger.  The finds delta in results is even more obvious for this one:

 

I guess it depends on the cache. My most DNFed cache, GC5H5G2, a 2/3.5 traditional published in 2014 with 17 DNFs and 91 finds, has this distribution of DNFs versus find count:

 

Find count          DNFs

0-99                       1

100-999                7

1000-9999           6

10000+                 3

 

It's one that shouldn't be that difficult. There's a big cave, which I guess most of the DNFers search pretty thoroughly even though the hint says it's not in there, but below it, almost at ground level, is a small opening with a dark hollow space around the corner where the cache is lurking (hence the name Lurking in a Dark Corner). Either they don't see it or, if they do, they don't search it thoroughly enough, and then spend the rest of their time scouring the surrounding bush and going further and further away from it. Those DNFers who've come back and found it on their second attempt all say they can't believe they didn't find it the first time.

 

 

None of the DNFs have been sufficiently clumped together to trigger the CHS, but it's close to home so I can easily go and check on it if it did. Incidently, in spite of those 17 DNFs, that cache has never gone missing.

Edited April 26 by barefootjeff

[+icezebra11]

11 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Here is another that is more or less typical of what happens, but this is a D4.0 cache, and I think I've rated it fairly.  This is what led up to that trigger.  The finds delta in results is even more obvious for this one:

 

 

I think you should post a picture of the hide so we can judge if it's properly rated. 🤣

[+JL_HSTRE]

I think the cache referenced by the OP does Need Owner Attention. Not because of the DNFs, but rather the log that mentions not being sure where the cache belongs. Sounds like the CO needs to visit and make sure the container isn't simply there, but that it's where it's intended to be.

 

It would be good if the CHS recognized when someone logs both a Find and a DNF, as happened here. In such cases the DNF should not count towards the CHS. DNF then Find happen from both logging errors by seekers who don't know how to delete a log, and also from seekers who can't find it on the first try but find it on a revisit. 

[+booksncomics]

On 4/26/2025 at 5:09 PM, barefootjeff said:

It's one that shouldn't be that difficult. There's a big cave, which I guess most of the DNFers search pretty thoroughly even though the hint says it's not in there, but below it, almost at ground level, is a small opening with a dark hollow space around the corner where the cache is lurking (hence the name Lurking in a Dark Corner). 

 

Maybe it's those shiny eyes that keep them from looking too close. lol

[+dimwit61]

Reading some of those DNF logs, if it had been me, I would have logged them "Write Note" since they didn't seem to conduct a search. I really think this is something that needs to be emphasised -did not search is not did not find. 

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, dimwit61 said:

Reading some of those DNF logs, if it had been me, I would have logged them "Write Note" since they didn't seem to conduct a search. I really think this is something that needs to be emphasised -did not search is not did not find. 

 

The common practice here is to log a DNF if you've tried your best to find the cache but don't end up getting your name in the logbook. Most of my caches are larger containers (22 regular and 29 small) so they aren't that difficult to spot once you get to GZ, hence most of the DNFs I get are when the attempted find failed for other reasons, such as snakes blocking the way, failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mosquitoes, tired kids, muggles at GZ, etc.

 

One of my epic DNFs was on GC1458J, which I attempted with a group of friends in 2023. We took a wrong turn on the way up the mountain, due to misleading arrows painted on the rocks, and ended up at an almost vertical rock face. The others managed to climb it but I just couldn't get enough traction and, even with a hand line, was worried I'd slide sideways and end up in a crumpled heap at the bottom. I'd put a lot of effort into trying to complete that cache, including a four hour drive just to get to the parking area, so a WN wouldn't have done the experience justice. In January this year, I went back and, taking the correct route, was able to convert that DNF into my 2000th find and give the cache the FP it so thoroughly deserved. Do we ever redeem an epic WN?

 

I've also DNFed an EarthCache when big seas prevented me getting to some of the waypoints. I'd been trying my hardest to complete it but couldn't because breaking waves were blocking the way. Likewise on the cache I DNFed because it was raining and the rocks I needed to cross to get to where I thought it might be were dangerously slippery and I'd exhausted all the other potential hiding places I could safely get to. I've also DNFed some fishing caches when I couldn't get the magnet I was using to latch onto the cache and retrieve it from its lair. I knew the cache was there and was trying my hardest to get my name in the log, but couldn't succeed.

 

DNF logs were around long before the CHS was invented and I don't see why that algorithm has to change the way we use them. We already have other log types (NM/OAR) to request action from the owner and NA/RAR to request reviewer intervention, so insisting that a DNF should infer one or other of those just reduces its usefulness. There are many obstacles a CO can put in the way of a find besides clever camo, particularly on higher terrain and non-traditional caches, and there are many ways for a search to end unsuccessfully other than the cache being hard to see, potentially missing or needing a visit from its owner.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

DNF logs were around long before the CHS was invented and I don't see why that algorithm has to change the way we use them. We already have other log types (NM/OAR) to request action from the owner and NA/RAR to request reviewer intervention, so insisting that a DNF should infer one or other of those just reduces its usefulness.

This needs to be reiterated for emphasis.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/6/2025 at 1:16 AM, barefootjeff said:

DNF logs were around long before the CHS was invented and I don't see why that algorithm has to change the way we use them. We already have other log types (NM/OAR) to request action from the owner and NA/RAR to request reviewer intervention, so insisting that a DNF should infer one or other of those just reduces its usefulness. There are many obstacles a CO can put in the way of a find besides clever camo, particularly on higher terrain and non-traditional caches, and there are many ways for a search to end unsuccessfully other than the cache being hard to see, potentially missing or needing a visit from its owner.

 

The algorithm has to use DNFs because too many geocachers are either unwilling to use OAR/RAR or don't know how.

 

The algorithm is also apparently ignoring OARs if a steady stream of Finds comes in.

 

Example: ammo can destroyed by mower in July 2024. 9 Finds before the first OAR is logged in Dec 2024. 16 further Finds before a second OAR in mid-March. 3 more Finds after that before someone (me) finally logged a RAR to get the cache disabled. CO has not logged on since 2022.

 

Meanwhile, over two dozen Finders were also unwilling to CITO the mangled remnants (the lid, with the handle still functional).

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The algorithm is also apparently ignoring OARs if a steady stream of Finds comes in.

 

Yes, I've noticed that too.