+eremite Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 What's the etiquette when your first attempt at a find ends in a DNF, but a subsequent attempt results in… another DNF? (dratted “Golden Hammer”!) Or, conversely, a find? Do you post it as a note, or re-log? Or does no one out there in cache-land really care one way or another? -eremite Quote Link to comment
WH Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 The only thing people seem to agree on is only one find log per cacher. Post as many DNF's or notes as you want. Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I have posted several DNF's against the same cache. I also leave the DNF's even after I find the cache. It is part of my history. But you can choose to do it any way you like. Quote Link to comment
+pghlooking Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 If i didn't find it today, then its a DNF and i post it as such. If i find it next week i post a find, but the one was still a DNF and is the history of my adventures as well as the cache's. I won't delete it or change it since it is what happened. No shame in not finding it. Quote Link to comment
+treasure_hunter Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I usually go with 1 DNF at first and then Notes after that, until found. Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I logged a DNF on a cache (I assumed it was the size of a film canister, and it turned out to be a breathstrip container), and someone with 12 finds found it a few days later. Next time i'm in the area, I'll spend more time looking for the cache. I didn't search long do to very active muggles nearby. Quote Link to comment
+IV_Warrior Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Well, I try not to let it happen, but if the need arises, and it sometimes does, I log multiple DNFs. It sometimes depends, I try not to overclutter the cache page, if I look today and can't find it, then get an idea and stop tomorrow and look in one spot, and it's not there, and I don't have time to really look elsewhere, I may not log that second one at all. Normally, that doesn't happen, and I don't stop for a cache I've previously attempted if I don't have at least 20 minutes to search. When I do eventually find the cache, the previous DNF logs remain, as they're part of both my and the cache's history, and I think they should remain even after I log the find. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 (edited) I log each attempt. If I don't find it 5 times, its 5 DNFs. Edited June 29, 2005 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+Map Only Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 The cache owner probably appreciates the feedback. I do try to be nice and note that I didn't spend much time looking when that is the case - and thank them for hiding the cache. I spent many hours looking for small items hidden in the woods years before Geocaching was invented and now there are days I just wish it was a friggin' ammo can under a piece of bark....... I guess I'm not a fan on caches designed with the idea of each finder spending an hour looking. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 If you look and didn't find it = DNF. It doesn't matter how many times you it. Just to muddy the water a bit more, some folks will post notes on long, multi-trip caches to show their progress through a hunt. I've even seen where they use the same log and add the latest segment to the top. They date the previous entry in the log and change the logs date to the present. It's less clutter to the cache page, but some don't like that. Quote Link to comment
ATMouse Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Partly because of cogent arguments I've read in these forums, I now log ALL my DNF's. If I have to log mulitiple times, I do. The truth sometimes hurts. Quote Link to comment
+CurmudgeonlyGal Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 If you look and didn't find it = DNF. It doesn't matter how many times you it. Just to muddy the water a bit more, some folks will post notes on long, multi-trip caches to show their progress through a hunt. I've even seen where they use the same log and add the latest segment to the top. They date the previous entry in the log and change the logs date to the present. It's less clutter to the cache page, but some don't like that. I've seen the one-log for all repeated cache visits, and, in fact, did it myself a couple of times... eventually I went through and separated them out so they were separate entries... appropriately accounting for my notes and DNF's and all that. Around here there are a few people who use one log for all cache notes/DNF's/Finds. I find it confusing when I'm out in the field trying to read through the logs for a particular cache if I need to. Maybe it's just how they chose to do it (no dates, usually, on the separate parts) or maybe it's just because it's... confusing. Not that it should make a difference in what you decide to do, but I MUCH prefer to read separate entries for the logs, especially when I'm out in the field. -=- michelle Quote Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I have logged as many as 4 DNFs on the same cache; they all still remain, along with my found it. Combining multiple visits/attempts into one log is confusing, and there is no good reason to do it. Quote Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Yup, I'm with the group on this one. I log each and every DNF. Of course, I always find the cache on my first try... Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Fortunately I haven't had to log a second DNF . . . yet, because I finally found the "dratted 'Golden Hammer'" (with the sharp-eyed help of my caching companion that day.) however I have to admit, I probably won't return to a cache on which I posted a DNF without a hint (if one is missing in the first place) or a generous clue from either the owner or a previous finder. Quote Link to comment
+reveritt Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 The most important rule of logging etiquette is to yell "TIMBER" when the tree starts to fall. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 ...and there is no good reason to do it. Other than combining multiple logs to be seen as one by a Pocket Query. It's gets more information in a PQ. Not that I've had much opportunity to do it. While there may have been one or two, I don't recall a cache that has taken us more than two trips to complete. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 (edited) If someone uses GSAK and doesn't clear the database when new PQs are added, each PQ's logs will build on the previous logs for a cache. If you choose the setting to not limit the number of logs when you export to Cachemate, they will be included. I have many more than four logs in some of the more-frequently visited caches in my area. Edited June 30, 2005 by idiosyncratic Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I have every log from every PQ I've received since I've been getting GPX-style PQs. I've collected over 6000 caches in the area we've been known to frequent. Many of the those caches have a complete log set. I do this because many times we've come across a situation where a log we do have references one we don't have. I got tired of it and started using GSAK to keep a complete record. However, some folks only use the single PQ they receive for that run. I saw this scheme of consolidating logs up North (North Carolina) on a cache that generally requires multiple trips. I thought it was a brilliant way to include all of one cacher's adventures instead of having an incomplete record. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Good point. I forgot about running a single PQ for an area that isn't in the usual search area for which you would have many PQs and therefore many more than four logs . . . Quote Link to comment
bman92 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 After someone finds a cache then they post notes not finds. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 At least they should. I found an old-timey cache yesterday that has been around for years. I pulled up the old logs and saw that someone who found it about three years ago recently posted another find after "checking" on it. Quote Link to comment
VectorHound Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I log all DNF's. If darkness, or rain, or muggle interuptions were the reason, then I so state... these are sometimes different problems than simply a difficult hide. One reason to post DNF's is to aid the owner, so give him some info to work with. If I return and find it, I start my find log with "Reversing my previous DNF" so future readuers will know its my second trip and can research the reason I gave up if they think it will help their decision as to when and how much time to allow. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.