Jump to content

Sad faces for DNFs!


lee737

Recommended Posts

At last! :)

 

sad.png

 

haha, lots of heads around Swansea Heads. Most are glad. Just one isn't. He got wet. (I know it doesn't rhyme)

 

That one is a really sad face - I'm sure its a triple-DNF for us.... spiders, cliffs and even a death-adder sighting here.....

Link to comment

At last! :)

 

sad.png

 

haha, lots of heads around Swansea Heads. Most are glad. Just one isn't. He got wet. (I know it doesn't rhyme)

 

That one is a really sad face - I'm sure its a triple-DNF for us.... spiders, cliffs and even a death-adder sighting here.....

And no Whales? Methinks I should give you a better hint.

Link to comment

I'm not a big fan of the frown face for DNF's that are being displayed on the map. You lose sight of the cache types when all DNF's look the same.

There's now a filter option to turn off the DNF and view the cache type.

 

Yep. That's very useful. Just switch off the frowns. Problem solved. Well.. all frowns are now gone from my map as I found all DNFs in my homezone :laughing:

Link to comment

It is weird that they've added this now. People have been asking for this for years, but Groundspeak also just radically changed the meaning and purpose of DNFs so this change is effectively useless at this point.

I must have missed that announcement. So "Didn't find it" no longer means that I "didn't find it"?

Link to comment
It is weird that they've added this now. People have been asking for this for years, but Groundspeak also just radically changed the meaning and purpose of DNFs so this change is effectively useless at this point.
I must have missed that announcement. So "Didn't find it" no longer means that I "didn't find it"?
Well, DNF does mean that you didn't find it. But based on this discussion, it also means something else. There was no announcement of what else DNF means though. But there's a lot of speculation in the linked discussion.
Link to comment
It is weird that they've added this now. People have been asking for this for years, but Groundspeak also just radically changed the meaning and purpose of DNFs so this change is effectively useless at this point.
I must have missed that announcement. So "Didn't find it" no longer means that I "didn't find it"?
Well, DNF does mean that you didn't find it. But based on this discussion, it also means something else. There was no announcement of what else DNF means though. But there's a lot of speculation in the linked discussion.

 

Quite honestly, I think you overthinking things. A DNF just means you didn't find the cache. Why you didn't find it you can write in your log: too many muggles around, saw it but couldn't reach it, it might be gone, whatever doesn't matter.

Link to comment
It is weird that they've added this now. People have been asking for this for years, but Groundspeak also just radically changed the meaning and purpose of DNFs so this change is effectively useless at this point.
I must have missed that announcement. So "Didn't find it" no longer means that I "didn't find it"?
Well, DNF does mean that you didn't find it. But based on this discussion, it also means something else. There was no announcement of what else DNF means though. But there's a lot of speculation in the linked discussion.

 

Quite honestly, I think you overthinking things. A DNF just means you didn't find the cache. Why you didn't find it you can write in your log: too many muggles around, saw it but couldn't reach it, it might be gone, whatever doesn't matter.

Unless that DNF causes the Cache Health Score algorithm to send off an email to the CO asking them to immediately visit the cache and fix the problem, disable it until they can or archive it.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

 

I've seen too many instances in the forum where people are getting nag emails over inconsequential DNFs.

 

Anyway, this feature would have been great five years ago but it just makes no sense if they're discouraging people from using DNFs now.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

 

The way I see it, nothing will be archived until a human reviewer checks it, so I would happily delete the nag emails as quickly as I do the notification emails from this forum..... to which I get dozens..... :)

 

 

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself.

 

But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. :anicute:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself.

 

But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. :anicute:

The cache is a T5, the only access is by water and at the time she visited a group of muggles had come ashore and were encamped there. That's the only DNF it's had, but then it's only had two finds so far. This is GZ - not exactly muggle central although it can get a few, particularly during the summer holidays...

 

GZ.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
The cache is a T5, the only access is by water and at the time she visited a group of muggles had come ashore and were encamped there. That's the only DNF it's had, but then it's only had two finds so far. This is GZ - not exactly muggle central although it can get a few, particularly during the summer holidays...

Looks like a very cool place!

 

If it's a popular camping area, that info would be on the cache page, informing a cacher that he may paddle all the way out there and not be able to hunt the cache. The cacher at best makes the campers wonder what's so fascinating about their campsite. There are many reasons that it may at some time be archived, if everybody is in everybody's space all the time. But how an automated script weighs such things, I cannot say. I wonder if Reviewers get lists of generated messages, and some Reviewers allow more of those to get sent than other Reviewers do. We may never know. All I can do is guess. :anibad:

 

I had a cache that had many non-cachers at times, and it wasn't too bad except that, yeah, cachers often were disappointed when they could not begin the search. And figuring out a decent time to go search, that was extra tricky. Except for that, the cache did very well. While picnickers were present, it was right there in their midst, yet the cache was never molested. I was amazed! It was archived when the park manager chained a garbage can to the cache's post, because I didn't want anyone to even think they have to dig around in the proximity of garbage. :rolleyes:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
The cache is a T5, the only access is by water and at the time she visited a group of muggles had come ashore and were encamped there. That's the only DNF it's had, but then it's only had two finds so far. This is GZ - not exactly muggle central although it can get a few, particularly during the summer holidays...

Looks like a very cool place!

 

If it's a popular camping area, that info would be on the cache page, informing a cacher that he may paddle all the way out there and not be able to hunt the cache. The cacher at best makes the campers wonder what's so fascinating about their campsite. There are many reasons that it may at some time be archived, if everybody is in everybody's space all the time. But how an automated script weighs such things, I cannot say. I wonder if Reviewers get lists of generated messages, and some Reviewers allow more of those to get sent than other Reviewers do. We may never know. All I can do is guess. :anibad:

 

I had a cache that had many non-cachers at times, and it wasn't too bad except that, yeah, cachers often were disappointed when they could not begin the search. And figuring out a decent time to go search, that was extra tricky. Except for that, the cache did very well. While picnickers were present, it was right there in their midst, yet the cache was never molested. I was amazed! It was archived when the park manager chained a garbage can to the cache's post, because I didn't want anyone to even think they have to dig around in the proximity of garbage. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't call it a "popular" camping place by any stretch (most of the time the bay is deserted), and there's a "no campfires" sign there, but that doesn't stop the occasional fisherman or water-skier from pulling in there for a barbecue or booze-up. That can happen anywhere. The cache itself wasn't close to the muggles' firepit but the access way was. But regardless, sending an email a few days after just one DNF telling the CO to fix it, disable it or archive it is inappropriate and only serves to discourage people from logging DNFs unless they're pretty sure the cache is missing.

Link to comment

sending an email a few days after just one DNF telling the CO to fix it, disable it or archive it is inappropriate and only serves to discourage people from logging DNFs unless they're pretty sure the cache is missing.

Not if the Difficulty is very low. The example you gave is "T5". If it's also "D5", that's a cache that must not be touched by the algorithm. It's expected to cause DNFs. If it's the default difficulty of 1.5, it's expected to be found when hunted, so the algorithm is doing what cachers need. That is, the CO has selected the wrong Difficulty, or the wrong hiding place.

 

Probably the reason for a computer algorithm is because I (and many cachers) don't "NA" caches when they need to be. And the reason I don't do that is because of the passive-aggressive reaction when I do. "It's just fine!!" *stomp* *stomp* *stomp* "See! I just went all the way over there and there was (as far as you know) nothing wrong with it!"

... and while the CO was at it, he fixed it, or archived it "because of all the stress" (he couldn't fix it). And I get all the grief. So I might allow a robot to do the dirty work from now on, thank you very much. In your case, frankly, if the Difficulty is super low, you're wrong, and the algorithm is exactly right. If it's in a grey area, then that's worth working out. But don't blame algorithm or the DNF. I don't mean to nitpick every cache and decide them, it's just an example. But sheesh, when I mention how to log something in a consistent way to help solve problems, I'm told "Hey, it's just a game", yet when I NA something, it's off with my head (um, I thought a minute ago it was just a game... :P)

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

 

The way I see it, nothing will be archived until a human reviewer checks it, so I would happily delete the nag emails as quickly as I do the notification emails from this forum..... to which I get dozens..... :)

 

 

 

So what you're saying is that automated emails don't bother you so they shouldn't bother anyone else?

 

I thought that ignoring an automated email from the health score algorithm could be cause for a reviewer to take further action.

 

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

 

The way I see it, nothing will be archived until a human reviewer checks it, so I would happily delete the nag emails as quickly as I do the notification emails from this forum..... to which I get dozens..... :)

 

My post did not contain any mentions of archive. Did you respond to the wrong post?

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself.

 

But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. :anicute:

 

It is no longer a suitable idea in many instances because the system treats it as a negative log, rather than a neutral fact for the CO to assess.

Link to comment

sending an email a few days after just one DNF telling the CO to fix it, disable it or archive it is inappropriate and only serves to discourage people from logging DNFs unless they're pretty sure the cache is missing.

Not if the Difficulty is very low. The example you gave is "T5". If it's also "D5", that's a cache that must not be touched by the algorithm. It's expected to cause DNFs. If it's the default difficulty of 1.5, it's expected to be found when hunted, so the algorithm is doing what cachers need. That is, the CO has selected the wrong Difficulty, or the wrong hiding place.

Really? You've never not found a D1 or D1.5? I've DNF'ed quite a lot, not because there was anything wrong with the rating or the cache, but simply because I didn't spot it on the day. There've been others where I've seen the cache but wasn't game to climb out to reach it - that's a DNF, or it was until the Cache Health Score started using that as an indicator of missing caches, now I just log a note. But even an accurately rated D1 or D1.5 could just happen to have a muggle sitting on top of it at the time of searching. Does that make it incorrectly rated? Should all low-D caches be in places muggles never go? And what about other common causes of non-cache-related DNFs like failing light, approaching storms or the onset of rain?

 

Just for the record, the difficulty rating on my cache in question is D2, partly because it's a multi. When the DNFer found it a week later she said that, without the distraction of the muggles, the hiding place was pretty obvious from the description and hint.

Link to comment

sending an email a few days after just one DNF telling the CO to fix it, disable it or archive it is inappropriate and only serves to discourage people from logging DNFs unless they're pretty sure the cache is missing.

Not if the Difficulty is very low. The example you gave is "T5". If it's also "D5", that's a cache that must not be touched by the algorithm. It's expected to cause DNFs. If it's the default difficulty of 1.5, it's expected to be found when hunted, so the algorithm is doing what cachers need. That is, the CO has selected the wrong Difficulty, or the wrong hiding place.

Really? You've never not found a D1 or D1.5? I've DNF'ed quite a lot, not because there was anything wrong with the rating or the cache, but simply because I didn't spot it on the day. There've been others where I've seen the cache but wasn't game to climb out to reach it - that's a DNF, or it was until the Cache Health Score started using that as an indicator of missing caches, now I just log a note. But even an accurately rated D1 or D1.5 could just happen to have a muggle sitting on top of it at the time of searching. Does that make it incorrectly rated? Should all low-D caches be in places muggles never go? And what about other common causes of non-cache-related DNFs like failing light, approaching storms or the onset of rain?

 

Just for the record, the difficulty rating on my cache in question is D2, partly because it's a multi. When the DNFer found it a week later she said that, without the distraction of the muggles, the hiding place was pretty obvious from the description and hint.

 

Yeah, I've legitimately DNFed on some very easy caches over the course of my caching career. Sometimes, even experienced cachers can be temporary boneheads. A cache owner should not be pinged with an automated nag message just because I went out caching without my thinking cap.

 

A cache owner should REALLY not be pinged with this nonsense because a new cacher doesn't understand skirt lifters, or because there was a creepy dude lurking in the general vicinity of the GZ, or whatever. These are scenarios that could generate DNFs, and cache owners should be able to make their own assessments regardless of the D rating.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself.

 

But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. :anicute:

 

It is no longer a suitable idea in many instances because the system treats it as a negative log, rather than a neutral fact for the CO to assess.

 

I'm sorry narcissa, it's not a negative thing, you see it as a negative thing. Apparently the community needs a little nudge every now and then to take care of their caches. Otherwise this whole thing would not exist in the first place. I've once lived in an area with just 500 caches, of which about 50 had problems. if you htink your cache is fine based on the log then great. No action needed. Why do you get so worked up about that? I want to see the reviewer that archives every cache that has gotten this email without analysing the situation first.

Link to comment

I wouldn't get too fussed about the automated emails. When caches start getting archived against the wishes of active CO's, there might be cause for concern. I have only ever seen an archive done by a CO or by a reviewer on behalf of a long-gone CO.

 

I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature.

It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years.

As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed?

That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself.

 

But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. :anicute:

 

It is no longer a suitable idea in many instances because the system treats it as a negative log, rather than a neutral fact for the CO to assess.

 

I'm sorry narcissa, it's not a negative thing, you see it as a negative thing. Apparently the community needs a little nudge every now and then to take care of their caches. Otherwise this whole thing would not exist in the first place. I've once lived in an area with just 500 caches, of which about 50 had problems. if you htink your cache is fine based on the log then great. No action needed. Why do you get so worked up about that? I want to see the reviewer that archives every cache that has gotten this email without analysing the situation first.

 

I haven't mentioned archiving. My concern is triggering nag emails for other people. I wouldn't want to receive those and I don't want to trigger them for others. So the implementation of this feature makes no sense to me at a time when DNF is no longer a simple indication that someone might want to make a return trip to a cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...