Ryan,

Good to hear from you! I read about your "mud encounter" on Day 25 and could only think how cold that must have made you! But no complaining was heard from you!

Thank you for educating me on the new(er) aspects of logging. I guess this leads me to a feature request / discussion.

Since there really isn't an "attempt" anymore (it has been replaced with "missing") would you be willing to discuss some other logging options? Without trying to open a can of worms or make things too complicated it seems that different people want different things logged for different reasons.

As I see it, there are basically three parties involved (this section a.k.a. "The world of logging according to KNS" or "If Green Tortuga made me King of AQ"):
Seeker - for purposes of this discussion, this is the person who just came in from the trail after looking for a box
Planter - it is obvious who this is
Next Boxer - this is a person who is pouring over the AQ site trying to determine which box to attempt next

Event	Seeker's Perspective	Planter's Perspective	Next Boxer's Perspective
1)Seeker finds box (currently supported by AQ and logged as Find)	Logs it as a record of the find (why KNS joined AQ)	Wants it logged to get feedback that their labor paid off	Wants to know that it is likely possible to find
2)Seeker starts for the box, but doesn't really make it to the box - perhaps they made it to their car, the parking lot, or the trail, or maybe they got rained out (personally I don't care about this case, but we've seen people log this as an attempt before which can cause discord) (KNS proposes a new feature where this can be logged as Started)	Apparently there are seekers who want to record this - but regardless of intent, as the events unfolded, there was never a possibility of the seeker actually getting "hands on box" for this outing-if it is logged that entry only shows up in the seekers log for their personal records	Planter could care less and doesn't want this showing up in logs associated with the box find count and skewing things	Next Boxer doesn't care either because it has no bearing on his future attempt
3)Seeker makes a concerted effort and believes that they were in the right place but does not find it (KNS proposes the return of an old feature where this can be logged as Attempted)	Seeker wants this logged because blood, sweat, and tears are associated with this effort and their lack of a find was not for lack of trying	Planter (IMHO) should want this logged because it gives them feedback on whether their clues are being properly interpreted	Next Boxer certainly wants this information because it indicates whether it is straight forward or not, as well as that the box may actually be missing
4)Seeker determines that the box is actually missing (I think this would be a rare case because without conversing with the planter or returning to a previously found box, more often than not the seeker doesn't have enough information to be certain that they looked in the proper 6 square inches of the planet-as much as they may think they did) (currently supported and logged as Missing)	Same as above	Planter needs to know the box is gone, but would likely know anyway because they would almost have to be consulted for a determination to be made	Next Boxer needs to know so as to avoid wasting time looking for a box which is known to be missing
5)Seeker does not complete a series, see Green Tortuga's Post (currently supported and logged as N/A)	No effect on log	No effect on log	No effect on log

Okay, that's enough WikiMarkup for one message... Let the comments begin!!!!

3)Seeker makes a concerted effort and believes that they were in the right place but does not find it (KNS proposes the return of an old feature where this can be logged as Attempted)

That is an attempt.

If you think you're in the right place, and the box is not there, then you think that the box is missing.

What you don't do is stop halfway up the trail because it starts raining and then log that as an attempt because you "attempted to find the box" but couldn't because of the weather.

I agree. Attempt is not an option anymore. AQ currently supports:

1) Found
2) Missing
3) N/A

Yes attempt is an option:

An attempt means that you believe the box is missing. You found the location where you are absolutely certain the box should be, and the box was physically missing from its location. If you fail to find a box because it started raining and you turned back early, that is not an attempt. If you fail to find the box because a swarm of bees is near it and you are unable to retrieve it, that is not an attempt. If you cannot solve the coded clue, that does not count as an attempt. An attempt means that you looked for the box and believe it to be missing.

http://www.atlasquest.com/about/wiki/search.html?gSearch=attempt

It's called "missing" in the record find pages because an attempt means that you think a box is missing and not just that you considered looking for the box. In other places (your logbook, book details, etc.) it is still called an attempt.

Sorry, my browser only loaded the first part of your message (up to)

That is an attempt.

I guess what I'm saying is that the seeker can't always know. Yes, I was in the right place. "It must be this tree". But somehow it got overlooked. It is VERY difficult IMHO for the seeker to know if the box is missing or if they are missing the box.

For example, look at Out in the Blue. We were there. Absolutely. However, there were literally thousands of rocks and we did not find the box. Did we miss it by a foot? Or is it missing? Only the planter could know.

AQ will not allow me to log this as an attempt (anymore). But I can't say for sure that it is missing.

Life's little complexities! :)

I have a box hidden in a restaurant. When they showed up, the restaurant was closed. They marked it as 'attempted.'

UGH.

hx6

For example, look at Out in the Blue. We were there. Absolutely. However, there were literally thousands of rocks and we did not find the box. Did we miss it by a foot? Or is it missing? Only the planter could know.

I think in that example you can use your best judgement.

If the planter doesn't give you a lot of information to go by, you can bet that there will be a lot of false positives.

Very nice chart!! A lot of thought went into that. I agree that there should be a return of "Attempted"
I know that this subject has probably been beaten to death, but frankly, I have a hard time searching the boards. I just cannot get the concept.

To me, I like to see the attempts.

There is a big difference between a box whose clues are very clear: count so many RR ties and look left to the block wall. See the square hole? Look inside to the left. There is ONE square hole and the box is NOT in it. (I log this as "missing") and one whose clues are somewhat vague: go down the trail X steps and look RT at the base of the fallen tree. (I log this as "attempted" b/c I am not 100% sure I was in the right place.

With all the boxes to find and so little time, when I do a search, I do NOT automatically rule out the boxes with an old last found date. I look at the attempts. If it was last found in 2012 and no one has attempted it since then, I still will try for it. If on the other hand, 6 or 7 folks have attempted to find it since then, I don't spend my time with it. There are too many other boxes to be found.

To list an attempt when you got to the trail and it started raining (why would THAT stop you, anyway? LOL) so you went home? That's just ridiculous and wrong.

I know that all LBers don't log their finds/attempts anyway, and I also know some planters restrict access to seeing attempts, which is their prerogative. I am just stating why I like the "attempt" option.

JMHO,
Mary/CC

Your concept has merit but since it would never be utilized correctly it just complicates things.

More Options = More Confusion.

All you need is:
1. Find It [aka Found]
2. Didn't Find It (reason doesn't matter) [aka Missing]
3. Didn't Try [aka N/A]

Just to be clear, an attempt--by my definition and the definition I expect people to use on AQ--means that you looked in what you believe is the correct place for the letterbox and didn't find it.

However, despite my telling people this, I've actually had people tell me in return that in their opinion, that is not a proper use of the word 'attempt.' Getting to a trailhead that turns out to be closed so they couldn't look for the box should count as an attempt. Not being able to solve a cipher on a mystery box should count as an attempt. And therefore, they were going to log them as attempt--despite my telling them that those are not attempts by AQ's definitions.

So I changed the wording so it said "missing"--as in, "I think the box might be missing." A status of "I think the box might be missing" is obviously a little wordy and clunky which is why the status is not called "I think the box might be missing."

But if you notice, I put a little † by the missing word, to explain: "To clarify, you believe you looked in the correct location but did not find the letterbox."

So you don't actually have to confirm that the box is missing in order to use the option--you just have to believe that you looked in the correct location and that you did not find the letterbox.

Are you sure you were looking in the correct place for the box? If you're certain you were looking in the correct area, then mark it as "missing."

You'll notice that everywhere else on AQ, it still shows up as an "attempt." In your logbook, there's no option for "missing" boxes that you've reported. There is an option for "attempts" that you've made, however, and you'll notice that everything you mark as "missing" ends up showing as an "attempt" everywhere else.

So why the difference? Because so many people refuse to use the AQ definition of attempt, which is problematic when someone doesn't even look for a letterbox but marks it as an attempt and everyone else thinks it's because the box might be missing. On the other hand, I want people who are looking at attempts to see them as attempts and not assume the box is actually missing--which they would if I used the term missing anywhere else.

So anyhow, long story short--if you believe you were looking in the correct location for a letterbox and where unable to find it, record it as "missing." That's exactly how it's supposed to be used. To everyone else, it will show up as "attempted." I use the more strict word to help discourage all those people who insist that it's okay to mark boxes as attempted even when they didn't meet AQ's definition of an attempt.

Seeker starts for the box, but doesn't really make it to the box - perhaps they made it to their car, the parking lot, or the trail, or maybe they got rained out (personally I don't care about this case, but we've seen people log this as an attempt before which can cause discord) (KNS proposes a new feature where this can be logged as Started)....if it is logged that entry only shows up in the seekers log for their personal records

There's not really any reason an entirely new feature needs to be developed. You can tag boxes. Pick a tag color, name it "Started" or whatever you prefer, then tag such boxes. Tags are personal records of anything you want, and AQ even lets you mark boxes with tags while recording finds. The tools are already there to do exactly what you suggest. You can search by them, remove them, etc.

Do some people not record attempts because they "aren't 110% sure" that a box is missing? Yeah, probably. But I'd rather people not record a legitimate attempt than record illegitimate attempts. It causes more trouble. People get really upset when illegitimate attempts are recorded on their boxes, but they don't get upset when legitimate attempts aren't recorded. So I go with the path of least resistance. =)

In a nutshell, if you're sure you were looking in the correct area for a box, don't think twice about marking it as "missing." If you want to mark boxes that you "started," use tags for that purpose. Nobody else wants to see them. =)

-- Ryan

Hello Ryan,

If a box is found, but there isn't a stamp inside, that one should be recorded as missing, right?
I have seen several "finds" recorded on boxes, but the comments say "stamp is missing"".

But then again, if there is still a box and a logbook, the finder can still sig stamp the logbook, and they did find something.....

Your thoughts?

No Stamp = Not a Letterbox

Well, that depends. Was the restaurant closed permanently, or was it just after hours?

I think in that example you can use your best judgement.

And that is precisely the heart of the problem. Some people, by their very nature, jump to conclusions, and will determine the box is missing, and will log it that way. Very often they will be wrong.

Many others (the majority, I think) refuse to say, "I think a box is missing" and will not log the box either way. I certainly will not do it. Ever. It would be stating an opinion, not a fact.

"Attempted" is factual. "Missing" is an opinion. I think we should stick to the facts and avoid asking people to make judgments about whether a box is missing.

People get really upset when illegitimate attempts are recorded on their boxes, but they don't get upset when legitimate attempts aren't recorded.

Only because they don't know about it.

Some people, by their very nature, jump to conclusions, and will determine the box is missing, and will log it that way. Very often they will be wrong.

And the next person will come along and find it and log a find and the world moves on :) An attempt does not make a box unavailable.

Many others (the majority, I think) refuse to say, "I think a box is missing" and will not log the box either way. I certainly will not do it. Ever. It would be stating an opinion, not a fact.

That's definitely your prerogative to not log attempts, but I think you're putting way too much significance to an attempt. They aren't that big of a deal. They only are valuable when there are a bunch of them, and when there are a bunch then that means that there is a lot of evidence that the box isn't there.

"Attempted" is factual. "Missing" is an opinion. I think we should stick to the facts and avoid asking people to make judgments about whether a box is missing.

You can't claim an attempt if you don't think that you're in the right spot and the box isn't there, so an attempt is still based on an opinion (or at least one person's view of the truth).

It's not really hard:

• You think you're at the right place and the box isn't there = attempt.
• You got lost, bored, tired, wet, etc., and didn't get to the hiding spot = not an attempt.

Don't put a lot of weight on fact vs. opinion. It's almost always opinion either way (well, technically it's belief). Sometimes the planter says "the box is not there" and then someone finds it anyway.

You can't claim an attempt if you don't think that you're in the right spot and the box isn't there, so an attempt is still based on an opinion (or at least one person's view of the truth).

You misunderstand -- I'm defining "attempt" as the dictionary does. It means you tried. That is factual. I certainly know with 100% certainly whether I tried to find a box or not. In geocaching they use DNF - Did Not Find. Again, that is factual.

How do you know you're in the right spot if there is no box there? If look where I first interpret the clues to mean, and I don't find the box, I do not immediately say, "I think I'm in the right spot, the box isn't here, therefore the box is missing." I think that reflects overconfidence. Rather, I say, "How may I have misinterpret the clues?"

i went to find an X box in a coffee shop here in NC. The first time, it was closed (odd at 10:30 in the morning). The second time we drove by, it was closed (also odd at 12:30 pm). The third time we drove by, we stopped in next door to ask about the coffee shop to discover that it was not only closed that day but permanently.

Well. We have no idea if the box is really missing or if it's in there. i still marked it missing, cuz i don't think any of us is getting it.

~tigs

Sometimes the planter says "the box is not there" and then someone finds it anyway.

True! After 3 different boxers logged attempts on one of mine, I went to look. I got bitten several times pawing through the bushes, couldn't find the box, gave up, and retired it. Thank goodness for newbie boxers in our area who didn't know not to look and found it! It's been found a couple of times since then, so I know that it is there. I would have hated to lose it--it is one of my first plants.

You misunderstand -- I'm defining "attempt" as the dictionary does. It means you tried. That is factual.

The difference is whether you mean that you tried by finding the possible hiding spot and the box wasn't there or if you tried by driving to the trailhead and then turned around because it was too muddy.

How do you know you're in the right spot if there is no box there?

You can never be 100% sure, just use common sense.

I'm defining "attempt" as the dictionary does. It means you tried. That is factual.

Then that is EXACTLY why AQ doesn't use "attempt" - if I "try" to solve a puzzle clue, but can't decipher it, then by "the dictionary definition" that is an attempt. But that doesn't provide ANY help to the people coming after you, which is really the only valid purpose of even having something other than "Found". Having a category other than "Found" gives a hint as to whether the box MIGHT be viable or not, to those who want that hint. Having such a loose (though dictionarily correct) definition of "Attempt" does NOTHING to indicate whether the box is viable or not, because I have no idea if your idea of "try" is "I read the clue but just didn;t understand it, so I gave up", or "I spent 3 hours looking under every rock trying to find it". It is meaningless without the context of "what do YOU mean by 'try'"... it depends on what your definition of "is" is, so to speak. But then consider the meaning of "missing" - to the best of my knowledge, the box isn;t there. THAT is useful to those following you, because the implication is that if you mark it as missing, you are pretty sure about it... nobody would get frustrated with failing to solve a cipher and mark it "Missing". You would only mark it "Missing" if you gave it a decent "try"... basically, "Missing" is putting a finer point on the concept of "Attempted".

This is where I should put some sort of pun or joke, so people know it is actually me, huh?

This is where I should put some sort of pun or joke, so people know it is actually me, huh?

So you mean when I log a find or attempt on AQ, I'm not putting a cylindrical piece of wood on the stamped image or clue respectively?

I got your back Wassa!

You know, I was just thinking, what if we only had the option of Find or N/A? Then if someone wanted to leave comments about his/her hunt, they would have to take the time to comment *intelligently* about their adventure. Let those who follow make a determination about whether to put the box(es) on the to-do list.

I don't understand the problem. The system ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. Can't we all be consistent on HOW to record? Ryan's suggestion for tags is the best alternative available for those who don't want to record the way the system was designed.

Wassa, shouldn't you be at-tempting the beggars with Sugar Free Gummi's tonight?

You misunderstand -- I'm defining "attempt" as the dictionary does. It means you tried. That is factual.

I can't quite understand the value in logging an attempt if you got too tired, lost, wet, etc. to find the box or failed in deciphering a mystery clue. This gives no useful information to the planter and other potential finders and has the unfortunate side effect of irritating some planters who may go out to do box maintenance in light of such attempts.

It's true that you can never be entirely sure whether you've found the correct tree, rock, or hidey-hole, but if the clues appear to match up, and the box is in an area where it could be possible that it has disappeared, then that's exactly what logging an attempt is for! If you need to be one hundred percent certain that the box is missing, when can you ever log an attempt? It gives useful information to both the planter and other potential finders. In some cases, I sought out a box and never quite found a location that matched with the clues and therefore logged no attempt.

On the other hand, I've logged attempts on a few boxes that I've found at a later date because I thought about the clues a second time, happened to hike the area again and give the clues another go, or went out after others logged successful finds. I don't feel particularly badly about logging even these attempts, which are a small percentage of the total logged attempts, because I truly believed I had found the correct location. In my opinion, more information is helpful to all those involved.

Nairon

I can't quite understand the value in logging an attempt if you got too tired, lost, wet, etc. to find the box or failed in deciphering a mystery clue. This gives no useful information to the planter and other potential finders and has the unfortunate side effect of irritating some planters who may go out to do box maintenance in light of such attempts.

Exactly. That's why we keep having these discussions, because people insist upon logging attempts of exactly that sort!

The difference is apparent when you actually read what they're doing, though. They usually expect that logging an attempt on AQ is something they do for their own records, not for anyone else! They're just logging that attempt to remind themselves that they already did something towards finding this box, even if it was just to turn around halfway there because it was getting too dark. And the whole issue of whether the planter or other finders get to read it is just whether or not they're curious about what you've been doing.

To list an attempt when you got to the trail and it stayed raining (why would THAT stop you anyway? LOL) so you went home? That's just ridiculous and wrong.

I did something similar but not quite. I went to find a series of three boxes. I looked pretty thoroughly for the first box and figured it was missing. (It was later confirmed by the planter to be missing.). To get the second and third box I had to go past the T in the trail that goes back to the parking lot and it started raining before I got to the T. I decided I wanted to get them in order and I didn't want to get the log books wet so I bagged it for the day. It is within 10 miles of home so I'll get it another day.

The missing box has been replaced so I should go get it now.

Not exactly what you brought up, but I can understand someone stopping when it rains.

If a box is found, but there isn't a stamp inside, that one should be recorded as missing, right?

I think so, but you'll find people who'll be happy to argue otherwise. I consider the stamp the heart and soul of a letterbox, though, so if the stamp is missing, I'll record it as missing. I think some people feel like since they found part of the box they should still get credit as part of their F-count, but they probably don't think of the stamp as the heart and soul of letterbox--they probably consider the hunt is what makes a letterbox a letterbox, and by that definition, it makes sense to count a partial find. *shrug*

So I personally don't consider it a find, and I wish everyone else agreed with me, but they don't. =) (The majority of people, I think, do agree with me on this count, but there are obviously exceptions!)

-- Ryan

Many others (the majority, I think) refuse to say, "I think a box is missing" and will not log the box either way. I certainly will not do it. Ever.

I bet you think a box is missing at times, but you just don't record it as such since you can't be 100% certain. You just don't want to go out on a limb and say it publicly just in case you're wrong. =)

> People get really upset when illegitimate attempts are recorded on their boxes, but they don't get upset when legitimate attempts aren't recorded.

Only because they don't know about it.

Assuming that is true, I don't see why that matters.

BUT! I don't think that assertion is true because a lot of people who don't like to publicly post their attempts will often contact the planters personally and ask if they were looking in the correct place, and often times they were. But I've never heard of a planter getting upset at one of these people for not recording their attempt publicly. I suppose it could happen so I wouldn't rule it out completely, but even when people know that there were attempts on their boxes that weren't recorded, they still don't get upset over it.

I'm defining "attempt" as the dictionary does.

Dictionary definition arguments don't really work very well because dictionaries usually have a lot of definitions for words. A complete dictionary will likely have dozens of definitions for a single word, and different dictionaries will even define words slightly differently from each other. And sometimes, people will even argue exactly what a dictionary means with a certain definition. Entire lawsuits have been fought over what a single word "means." So "dictionary arguments" will never get you anywhere--especially when you're trying to argue that a word means something other than what the person who wrote it means. Perhaps you feel my wording is unclear, but I know what I meant when I wrote it. I feel like you're trying to tell me that no, that's not what I meant at all. Well, uhh, yes it is.

In this case, I defined the words "attempt" and "missing" for Atlas Quest. If you prefer your own definition and therefore choose never to record an attempt... *shrug* I won't lose sleep over it. You aren't hurting anything by not recording your attempts except maybe a couple of people might look for a box that's missing because you didn't want to presume it was missing. But finders ought to expect missing boxes every now and then so that shouldn't be a huge shock to them either. It's part of letterboxing.

It would be stating an opinion, not a fact.

Facts are fuzzy things. The earth used to be flat. Then it was round. Now it's an "oblate spheroid." Check out The Half-life of Facts. There are no such things as "facts." ;o) (Except that--no such things as facts is a fact. *more eye twitching*)

-- Ryan

Thanks! Just wanted to be on the same page on that matter.

~J (still trying to figure out other behaviors...)

Then if someone wanted to leave comments about his/her hunt, they would have to take the time to comment *intelligently* about their adventure

whoa now. you're making a big assumption there. i want to come here on AQ, and then you want me to not only record my find but comment intelligently on it???

that's it. i can't box any more. . .

~tigs