Did Not Find

[+The Saints]

Lately I have been noticing that when I go out caching in an area I seem to be following someone. I will do a querie on an area and start my day. We will notice that when we sign the logs, lots of times the same person has signed it before us. Then on occasion we will sign the next log on our journey and the person we normally see previous to our log is not there. Later when we log our finds on the computer, we'll see that the person whom we were following has already logged their finds, but they don't log any DNF's on the ones we didn't see them on. They might not have searched for that particular cache, but if they were following an area in a querie, one would think they would have looked for it.

Is there a problem with DNF's? As a cache owner, I would like to see DNF's to keep track of any problems (or my superior hiding skills, laugh).

Lets hear it.

[newmonster]

Heck i dont think that there are any prob's with DNF's besides that you might be imbaresed that you didnt find it. i would also tend to agree with you that if there was a problem with someone not finding my cache what the problem was, i.e. bad cords, reception on the gps, anything. thats just one guys thoughts though.

[+robert]

some don't like to log DNFs for whatever reason but they're actually quite useful to other seekers as well as the cache owner. the others you were tailing all day could have chosen a different route or may have already done that cache before. could be any number of reasons to not see their name.

 

[+briansnat]

Is there a problem with DNF's?

 

Some people see them as a sign of failure and are afraid to admit failure.

[+The Jester]

And some will only post one if they are sure the cache is missing.

[+Team Neos]

And some will only post one if they are sure the cache is missing.

True. I ran into that from the owner of a cache I looked for when I was a very green cacher--probably my third or fouth cache attempt ever. We posted a DNF for a cache after looking for it for about 25 minutes. The cache owner wrote to me to say that they only posted a DNF if they were sure the cache was gone.

That confused the heck out of me.

For starters, I was really really new at geocaching. I hadn't seen many kinds of hides, and that one wasn't very easy to find. They should have just shrugged and figured that I would find it eventually.

Secondly, if I didn't find it, how would I know where it was supposed to be to tell that it wasn't there???

I just decided that "It takes all kinds" and kept posting the results of my attempts. I eventually found that cache and posted my found it note (left the old DNF, too).

[+budd-rdc]

I posted a few DNF's as a newbie, then realized that my search skills weren't too good, as cachers that followed often posted finds.

 

I stopped posting DNFs for a while, to not annoy the cache owners and to save myself from embarassment.

 

Now, I usually post DNF's on difficult hides to add to the entertainment value. I also post DNFs for caches I feel are likely missing, since I'm more confident with my search skills.

 

I'd post a note if I didn't make the effort to search, or if muggles got in the way, but as long as you explain what happened, DNFs are acceptable, too.

[+gpsjeep]

DNF's. If I look for a cache and can't find it for whatever reason. I always log it as DNF.

There's no problem with being honest and there's no embarrassment with it either.

Sure, I don't really like wandering around in the woods only to come up empty handed but GeoCaching is a game of hide and seek and sometimes you come up empty handed.

But the more you play this Geocache game the better you get at it.

If you don't log your DNF's because you have a fear of admitting failure to the Geocache players, you need to get over yourself.

 

Now, Lets Go Geocaching!!!

-Jeff

[+Mach 5]

I will usually log DNF's as long as I remember. It is good for my own purposes to remember to go back to a cache, or check up on it to see if someone else found it.

[+Bear Paughs]

If I've attempted to find the cache with no success, then I log a DNF. I didn't log a DNF on a micro recently, but that was because there were too many muggles around and we aborted our mission before actually making an attempt for the container. The way I figure it, someone who has gone through the effort to place a cache is likely interested in what people have to say about their trip. So I tell the story of our hunt, and hopefully it's entertaining for the cache owner. Besides the logs are our journal of sorts, too. I think when we've been doing this for a long time and have many more finds that we'll enjoy going back and reading our logs, DNF's and all. (and I suspect the DNF's may be the ones we enjoy reading the most.)

[+AtoZ]

It is only a game so does it really matter?????

 

I have lots of folks post found it after the 4 or 5th visit did they log a DNF, NO. One group was logging DNFs saying the cache(s) were not there when it was just it was a hard cache to reconize. Only if an experianced cacher seems to have a problem will I do any thing and even then it depends upon the cache.

cheers

[+edscott]

Sometimes if I do not find a cache, but know I did not give it all the time it deserved, I'll just post a note and then edit the note to a find when I get back to the area and find it. I don't like to write a DNF if I am realtively sure the cache is there, unless the reason for my DNF has some entertainment value.

[+Sonoran Privateers]

Remember, you don't know for sure that they even searched for those particular caches. Just becuase they were caching in the area doesn't mean they went for every cache there. I do it all the time. I have a favorite area I like to cache in, and I don't want to spoil it for myself by finding all of them, so I find a couple of them each time I go out. If you were watching me, you'd think the same of me.

[+Glenn]

I've read many excuses why someone doesn't want to log a DNF or logs a DNF as a note. A DNF log is a log, just like all the other log types. There is an area to include the reason for your DNF. Unfortunately the TNLNSL mentality of Found It logs is being applied to DNF logs.

 

There are some that are against DNF logs except for in the case where the cache is actually missing. If you choose to use software that strips the text from the logs, convenience usually comes with a price. The price here is not knowing why a DNF was logged.

[+briansnat]

I've read many excuses why someone doesn't want to log a DNF or logs a DNF as a note. A DNF log is a log, just like all the other log types.

 

The way I look at it there are two possible results when you hunt a cache. You find it or you don't. There is a log type for each. I don't understand all these grey areas like "I only looked for 15 minutes", "I was planning on coming back", "I'm not good at this and didn't want to alarm the owner", "I only log DNFs if I'm sure its missing" (on the other hand there those who log a "found it" if they are sure its missing ), etc....

 

Find cache and you get a . If you don't find it, you get a . It should be pretty simple.

Edited July 21, 2005 by briansnat

[+Sagefox]

The way I look at it there are two possible results when you hunt a cache. You find it or you don't. There is a log type for each. I don't understand all these grey areas...

But wait The Saints... there's more!

 

It has been well documented in these forums that there ARE gray areas regarding Found v. Not Found and that a Note with a description of whether a full search was possible at the time of the search might also be appropriate. Often, if little effort goes into finding a cache the searcher simply does not log anything on the cache page. That might be what is happening in your area.

 

A cache can, in effect, be punished by a Not Found log if that cacher didn't give it a full effort. Subsequent cachers and especially travelling cachers will often avoid a cache when the face frowns. Some say that someone rejecting a cache just because of one or more Not Founds is a fault of the searcher. Maybe so but the cache gets avoided just the same.

 

Some people have strict time limits for finding caches before moving on. Three and Five minutes have often been mentioned. If someone posted a DNF on one of my caches after spending only five minutes I would request that entry be changed to a Note or deleted. There are many other reasons why a Not Found log would be inappropriate.

 

The "black & white" logic people would have you believe that the real world operates like a computer but out in the field there is more going on than ones and zeros.

[+Team Neos]

I still want to know...

 

If you are out looking for a cache without someone who has found the cache before, and you do not find it, how can you decree that just because you don't find it that "it's not there"?

 

I hear/see folks say that all the time...."We looked everywhere, but the cache is missing" the owner goes and looks and write back "It right where I left it".

 

I guess that, like a tree in the woods that makes no sound if no one is there to hear it, a cache in the woods does not exist unless it is found.

[+sbell111]

Generally, I don't pay that close attention to those that log caches right before me.

 

On a few occasions, I've signed logs on several caches behind another party. I've never paid attention to when or whether they've logged their finds online.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If you are out looking for a cache without someone who has found the cache before, and you do not find it, how can you decree that just because you don't find it that "it's not there"?...

You can't. I've had multi hundred cache finders post a DNF telling me I need to get my butt out to replace the cache. I did, it was there.

 

2 finds, 200 finds you can still fail to find a cache.

 

If the description is explicit you can be 95% sure a cache is gone. But there is no gurantee. I've posted "cache is gone" notes on caches I've foudn before only to learn that someone moved it and I didn't look where it was, only where it used to be.

[+geognerd]

Some people have strict time limits for finding caches before moving on. Three and Five minutes have often been mentioned. If someone posted a DNF on one of my caches after spending only five minutes I would request that entry be changed to a Note or deleted. There are many other reasons why a Not Found log would be inappropriate.

That is absolutely insane, that someone would only allow 3-5 minutes to search for a cache. Unless they're trying to set some sort of geocaching record. But what's the fun in that? Personally, my limit is 30 mins. If I can't find it in 30, I'm not going to find it during that visit. To go back on topic, I only log DNFs if I think I put in a good search effort or if I have reason to think the cache is gone. I'll also log a DNF if I know the cache is a toughie. On a few occasions, cache owners have given me hints after seeing my DNF. DNFs should be used if you put in a good effort, so you at least get recognition for being there that day. I don't throw DNFs around, because they can "defame" a cache. I know I look twice at a cache if I see the last log was a DNF...gotta make sure nothing is wrong before driving to the cache.

[+geognerd]

I'll also log a DNF if I know the cache is a toughie. On a few occasions, cache owners have given me hints after seeing my DNF.

Oops! The way that's worded, it sounds like I log DNFs just to get hints. No way! Like I said, DNF only if I put in due effort at the cache. And even with these additional hints, there are a couple of caches I still haven't found after numerous return visits. Of course, I didn't log DNFs for those visits since I had already logged one before.

[+MountainMudbug]

I went to find a new-ish cache today. By the time I found the parking place and strolled across the grass, I was already sweating profusely. Then just as I started to search, I got whacked by a thorny something and scratched myself up pretty good. Even though I was probably within 20 feet of the cache, BOOM! - I was outta there!

 

What's one more DNF on my list gonna hurt? I've got so many already, for various reasons ('lame' reasons by hardcore caching standards, no doubt)

Anyone keeping track of my activity around here probably thinks I couldn't find my way out of a paper bag..... well, maybe I couldn't!

[+sbell111]

On a hot, humid day like today, if I don't bump into the cache parking the car, its a DNF.

[+Renegade Knight]

I went to find a new-ish cache today.  By the time I found the parking place and strolled across the grass, I was already sweating profusely.  Then just as I started to search, I got whacked by a thorny something and scratched myself up pretty good.  Even though I was probably within 20 feet of the cache, BOOM! - I was outta there! ...

There are days where the fun just isn't to be found no matter what. . I use the same method when that happens.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+NomadVW]

A cache can, in effect, be punished by a Not Found log if that cacher didn't give it a full effort. Subsequent cachers and especially travelling cachers will often avoid a cache when the face frowns. Some say that someone rejecting a cache just because of one or more Not Founds is a fault of the searcher. Maybe so but the cache gets avoided just the same.

Exactly. I often put in 2-3 searches before I log the cache DNF. If the cache is a 1/1 with a "plain in sight" hide description, this probably isn't the case. When the cache rating goes up, I assume my searching requirements will also go up. Not being able to spend 8 hours looking for any one cache, I usually search for 45 minutes to an hour at a time. 3 of these searches and I can be reasonably assured that the cache is not there or I'm never going to find it if it is.

 

Now... all these have exceptions. If I'm hunting a cache that was DNF'd a couple times before, I'll still go out and look but probably not give it this same amount of search. This is the exact reason why I'm less likely to DNF a cache after coming home the first time. Fact is, I still haven't DNF'd it, because I intend to go back and look again. And if someone was going out to look for it tomorrow, chances are whether I DNF it or not, they're still going out there to look.

 

Anyway - there is truth to the idea that a couple DNF's by people that just went out and didn't search hard can put the nail in the coffin for a cache. Even after the owner goes out and confirms its location, folks will assume the cache is too hard to find and not go look.

 

VW

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I personally feel that DNFs are useful and somewhat important to the caching community. So long as we (Sue and I) have reasonably completed a decent search effort, I tend to file DNFs almost religiously. As for the text, that is, the actual DNF log content, I find many DNF reports to be at least as entertaining as "found" reports, if not more so. I do realize that some cacher see them as stigmatic of failure, and I realize that some cache owners may fear that too many DNFs filed for a cache may lead to its being archived by an over-aggressive reviewer.

[+Ladycacher]

I have always logged my DNF's. I don't have any personal reason not too. I didn't find it...so what...good hide. Also if there is more than one DNF I may not go out to find it, or it might tell the owner to go check on it.

 

My 2 cents

[+briansnat]

Exactly. I often put in 2-3 searches before I log the cache DNF

 

So YOU'RE the one!

 

Seriously, if it takes you 2-3 visits to find a cache, don't you think the owner and other geocachers might want to know that?

 

If I rate my cache a 3 difficulty and I see nothing but smileys, I'm going to knock it down a few. If everyone is doing what you are doing maybe the cache does deserve 3 stars, but I won't see that and will probably change it to 1.5 stars. Then the next person comes along expecting a piece of cake.

 

Also, as a finder, if I see nothing but smileys in the log, I'm going to expect an easy find, no matter what the rating is. I'll give it a short search and probably give up thinking its gone. Everyone else found it easily, so it MUST be gone. On the other hand if I see a bunch of DNFs I expect that the hunt might be a bit more involved and will budget the extra time.

 

The logs are an important piece of information for cache owners and other geocachers. If some geocachers are not accurately reporting their experiences it can be very misleading.

[Apollo Bob]

I guess that, like a tree in the woods that makes no sound if no one is there to hear it, a cache in the woods does not exist unless it is found.

Exactly - it's like Schrodinger's Cache. Each cache exists in a simultaneous state of Found/Not Found, until the cacher comes along and collapses the wave function.

 

Personally, I have no qualms about going out to look for a cache with a couple of DNF's as the most recent logs. I always have fun looking, and who knows, maybe I'll be the one to find it.

[+Sagefox]

edit: post not really contributing to this topic.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Team Sagefox