Logging Finds

[+Cache Heads]

Hi folks.

 

I'm wondering which is the proper etiquitte when logging a find on a cache after not finding it the first time around. Do I leave the DNF log and add a found log, or do I simply edit the DNF and change it to found?

 

Thanks!

[+webscouter.]

I leave the DNF. Otherwise the history of the cache is wrong. I didn't find it once, I did find it the second(or third, or forth...) time

[+sbell111]

I agree with webscouter. I don't know about you, but I find that some of the most interesting stories are DNFs.

[+the hermit crabs]

Another reason to leave the DNF and post a new found-it lof: if you just edit your old DNF log, the owner won't be notified. They'd probably like to hear that someone who DNF'd before eventually came back and was able to find it.

[+the hermit crabs]

I was reading some cache logs recently, for a cache that was difficult and had several DNFs before FTF. Part of the log sequence made no sense, as one of the "found" logs was dated before the FTF log; eventually (after reading more of the logs) I realized that one of the early DNF-ers had gone back and changed his log to a "found it" after he did find it, days after the FTF. It would have been a lot clearer to follow the whole sequence if he had just left the DNF log and added a found-it log later.

[+Team Red Oak]

Definately better to leave the DNF and then in your Found it log tell what you did differently (without giving anything away) that enabled you to find it. If I can't find a cache, I'll go back and read the logs and even when someone writes that they had to look from a different perspective or they write that they came at the cache from the pile of rocks instead of the path makes a difference and can be helpful to some one else. Besides some of the DNF logs are the best ones to read.

[+Miragee]

I always leave my DNF logs . . . sometimes they are right next to each other in the log sequence. Not only is it a history of the cache, it is an accurate representation of my own caching history.

[+NoLemon]

As others have said, leave the DNF and log your find in a separate log with the date you found it. The DNF is part of your caching history and part of the cache's history.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I use my DNF list as ToDo list of sorts, so it's constantly getting longer and shorter, longer and shorter. I occasionally look through my DNF list, then go out to find those caches I couldn't find previously. When I do locate a DNF cache, I add a new found log, then delete the old DNF log(s).

[+NoLemon]

I use my DNF list as ToDo list of sorts, so it's constantly getting longer and shorter, longer and shorter. I occasionally look through my DNF list, then go out to find those caches I couldn't find previously. When I do locate a DNF cache, I add a new found log, then delete the old DNF log(s).

I find the bookmark feature a great way to keep track of DNFs I want to go back to.

 

Do you delete your DNFs just to remove them from a "to do" list?

[+The Leprechauns]

I find the bookmark feature a great way to keep track of DNFs I want to go back to.

 

Do you delete your DNFs just to remove them from a "to do" list?

I do the same. See the link to my DNF bookmark list in my sigline below.

 

I've *never* deleted a DNF, and I proudly logged my 100th DNF last month up in Erie, PA, land of devilish micros. Some of my DNF logs make for wonderful stories, even better when they are cleaned up with "found it" logs.

 

My all-time favorite example is Brainbuster Cache, which took me four attempts to find. (See logs from April-May 2003.) An item essential to finding one stage of the cache had been destroyed by a fallen tree and was removed by the park. My DNF log and subsequent e-mails with the cache owner uncovered this problem and the clue for that stage was adjusted. Unfortunately, the replacement clue contained a serious math error. I will never forget how much time I spent poking around a covered bridge in a park 30 miles from home. Once everything got fixed, finding the rest of the cache was a snap! Reading the "found it" log together with the earlier DNF's makes for a much better story.

[+tozainamboku]

I you log all your DNF's, like The Leprechauns, and don't delete them once you've found the cache you can calculate your find percentage (like a batting average). Just divide your find count by the sum of your find count and your number of DNF logs. This gives you the percentage of times your cache hunt resulted in a successful find

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm busy chasing that most coveted of all Geo-stats, 100 DNFs. I'd NEVER delete a DNF and I log them all. Up to 92, so not long now. At one time I figured I'd have 100 DNFs before 100 FTF or 1000 finds. But sadly, that's not the case. It's certainly likely though that I'll have 100 DNF before 2000 finds.

[+The Leprechauns]

Ha! I hit 100 DNF's the same weekend that I hit 1500 finds.

 

Slacker.

[+sbell111]

I probably had 100 DNFs before I had 100 finds.

[+The Leprechauns]

I probably had 100 DNFs before I had 100 finds.

We've already established that you're clueless, but thanks for quantifying it.

[+sbell111]

This is a hard week to be me.

[+501_Gang]

Leave the DNF. There's no shame in DNF's. Everybody has them, just not everybody logs them.

[tinkernoonoo]

Hm. Interesting. I almost never log DNFs - not because of some lame ego thing (I really couldn't care less about appearing ditzy and unsuccessful), but because I feel bad about cluttering up people's logs. It's only if I think the cache might be missing that I would record a DNF. However, the opinions you're all expressing are making me reconsider this habit!

[+Cache Heads]

Thanks, all.

 

I posted this after changing a DNF to found, pretty much because I was afraid of cluttering the logs (as the previous poster noted). From now on I will leave the DNF and add a found-- sounds like the way to go!

 

Thanks.

[+robert]

Hm. Interesting. I almost never log DNFs - not because of some lame ego thing (I really couldn't care less about appearing ditzy and unsuccessful), but because I feel bad about cluttering up people's logs. It's only if I think the cache might be missing that I would record a DNF. However, the opinions you're all expressing are making me reconsider this habit!

Log the DNFs, you know you want to. All the cool kids are doing it.

 

[+crazyone]

I always log my dnf's on the caches because it gives me a record of which caches i couldn't find and hopefully finish what i started(some cacheowners have emailed me hints after i couldn't find it after several time)and i done the same for them after their several dnf

[bogleman]

When I first started I never logged a DNF but after some reflection I realizied that logging a DNF has many uses rather than the stigma on not being able to find the cache. Here is an example of my latest adventure Larry's Coon Hunting Cache make sure you read all the logs - a DNF for every visit except for the last one. Look at the support from the local cachers, that makes it all worth while.

[+edscott]

Ok.. I log DNFs, but when I find it I edit it to a find with the finding date, while leaving the DNF information and that date in the text. My reasoning is to cut down on clutter in the log, but I realize that owners that depend only on emails and do not visit their cache pages, will not have the whole picture.