Dnf Logs For A Cache Searched For Multiple Times?

[spinifex]

Hey.

 

I searched for the Harbor Steps Micro cache last month, and didn't find it. I logged it as a DNF. Since then, I've been back there a few times, searching for it, all to no avail. However, I didn't log those visits. Should I have?

 

The reason I don't is that, as a local Seattle resident, I'm in the area every weekend, shopping at Pike Place Market just a couple of blocks away. Going to this cache isn't particularly out of my way, as I literally pass by there on my way to the Market - all I do is stop for a few minutes, search for the cache in nooks I haven't looked in before, shrug, and continue on my way. I feel bad logging a billion DNFs when I haven't found it, as I haven't been giving a commited search for it all these times. I'm also new to geocaching, so micro's might still be out of my league.

 

So, should I be recording these DNFs, or just wait until I find it? (BTW, other cachers, there's an awesome sushi restaurant also on the Harbor Steps!)

 

Thanks,

C-ko

Edited August 21, 2005 by spinifex

[+sept1c_tank]

Log them; I would.

[+Happy Bubbles]

I've had a couple similar situations in the past. I posted a DNF after the first or second trip, then only posted DNFs again if I had something new to say. There was one that I looked for maybe 10 times, whenever I was in that neighborhood in downtown Osaka, and I posted maybe three DNfs, reporting on the progress of the construction work right on top of the cache and changes in the hours of availability. Posting a string of little unhappy faces can give people the false impression that the cache is missing when really it's just one cacher who hasn't gotten the chance for a really thorough look.

[+sept1c_tank]

Yes, good point, but logging DNFs just feels good. Maybe it would be nice if you said in the log that you only searched for 10 minutes, thus not giving anybody the impression that the cache is missing.

[+Mastifflover]

I log a DNF every time if I can't find it. Sushi yuck!

[+Firefighter Skippy]

Instead of "DNF", why not "make a note"? I think thats the more polite way.

[+robert]

Instead of "DNF", why not "make a note"? I think thats the more polite way.

Nothing impolite about logging a DNF.

[+Team Neos]

If you don't want to clutter up the cache page with sad blue faces because you don't think it's a fair representation of your search or the cache's difficulty, you could just keep revising your original log. Add the new date and maybe a short note saying how long you searched each time.

[+Smukke]

an e-mail to the cache owner might be in order as well, if you really think it's gone missing. The owner might not have noticed the DNF for some reason.

 

I definitely avoid caches with DNFs on recent logs... but if they look particularly interesting I put them on a watch list, too, to see if somebody else comes along & finds later (or the owner moves/replaces it).

[+Mudfrog]

I definitely avoid caches with DNFs on recent logs... but if they look particularly interesting I put them on a watch list, too, to see if somebody else comes along & finds later (or the owner moves/replaces it).

 

We are just the opposite. Of course some of these are indeed missing but it sure feels good when we do make a find after a couple of bluefaced logs!

 

I always post our DNFs but i also always give a little bit of info in those logs. Most of the times its something like this, "we looked and looked but couldnt find, probably just missed it somehow so we'll be back". This kind of log would be a standard DNF and would NOT be cause for alarm for the cache owner or the next cache finders.

 

Now if we scoured the area well and i really think it may be missing then i'll post something like "we looked hard for this one, not sure how we could have missed it, hope it's not missing". This second log type might be of more concern to the owner and future finders. It certainly doesnt mean that the cache is missing but it may help the owner decide if he/she may want to check on their cache.

[+caderoux]

If I made even a half-hearted search or tried to search but area was blocked by muggle, DNF; if I just passed by, Note.

[spinifex]

Oh, and I know the cache is still there. It's a popular cache, and has recently been found. So I don't think, it's missing so much as it might be beyond my skills right now.

 

But - I'm going there today, so maybe my luck will change

 

Thanks,

C-ko

[+Thot]

Hey, you should be over giving the thumbs up to my Waymark Catagory.

[+tozainamboku]

Its up to you if you want to log every attempt as a DNF. But if you do you can compute your find average (like a batting average in baseball). Just divide your find count by the sum of your find count and the number of DNF logs you have to get the percentage of times you go caching where you get a successful find

[+budd-rdc]

Keep in mind that GPX files downloaded from GC.com individually or by Pocket Query contains only the last five logs - that means Paperless cachers will only see that many. Therefore, it's courteous to leave a note or DNF for each of your visits only if it is constructive. We wouldn't want to see just five of your "I couldn't find it again" DNF/note and nothing else.

 

Otherwise, e-mailing the cache owner is probably a better choice.

Edited August 22, 2005 by budd-rdc

[+501_Gang]

If we see a couple of DNF's in a row we will run out and check the cache to make sure it's still there.

 

We just had one that the last 8 groups out there couldn't find it. We checked on it every 2 - 3 DNF's and it was still there.

 

Finally today someone found it! But the DNF's help us know if we should check on it more than once a month.

 

So keep logging those DNF's.

 

(Edited because I can't spell!)

Edited August 22, 2005 by 501_Gang

[+Sugar Glider Sweatshop]

We always log our DNFs, no matter how may times we've "not found" it.

 

It adds to the history of our caching adventure. It adds to the history of the cache. It lets the cache owner know that even though we didn't find the cache, we're interested enough in it to try again.

[+hotshoe]

I think it's dumb when someone logs more than one DNF on the same cache - what does it add to anyone's understanding of the cache situation ? Who has the time to waste logging those ? Who has the time to waste reading those useless extra logs ? It really puzzles me that some people think you should log every DNF on the same cache. Of course, you are going to log the first DNF; then when you finally find it, you can post in your log that you have been looking off and on for however-many visits! Oh, but there might be an exception, if you have found out the specific spot and the cache is definitely not there (I met up with XXX who confirmed the cache was not where he found it last...) SO log that visit as your second DNF and maybe follow up with an email to the owner.

[+Sue Gremlin]

I dunno, If I knew the cache was there, I would log DNFs every time if I kept going back and not finding it, just so I could keep track. I don't think it clutters up the page, it is good info for the owner, and a record for me. And an indication of the real-time activity of the cache. I would post a note if I were not sure it was there.

[+BillsBayou]

Put the cache on your watch list.

 

Log a DNF.

 

Search as often as you like, edit your DNF log every once in a while to show you're still searching. You won't clutter the log with DNFs (a concern of yours), but you'll show activity on the log.

 

Wait until someone finds the cache, then post your next DNF.

 

It'll look like the cache is active and difficult to find. I personally think that's a compliment to the hider and looks good on the cache log.

[+beejay&esskay]

If I search and Did Not Find, I'll log a DNF.

 

And I'll do the next time. I have the time. I'm sorry you think it's dumb.

 

I have one cache currently not found with 2 DNFs. I'm not sure if it's really there...but that doesn't affect the fact that I didn't find it.

 

And there was another that I DNF twice, but later found. On the third trip, if I hadn't found it, another DNF.

 

It's all about the numbers, and the DNFs are my honorable scars for a battle well-fought.

[bogleman]

I just started a more accurate account of my geocaching adventures so I log a DNF if I was unable to complete or find the cache. I have some free time so I try to log a funny accurate account of my adventure. Here is an example of one of my latest adventures (plus look at the local support) I did send a private email to the owner asking if multiple DNF logs bothered him (I did not want to bash his cache or scare anyone off)Larry's Coon Hunting Cache

[+Miragee]

I think it's dumb when someone logs more than one DNF on the same cache - what does it add to anyone's understanding of the cache situation ? Who has the time to waste logging those ? Who has the time to waste reading those useless extra logs ? It really puzzles me that some people think you should log every DNF on the same cache. Of course, you are going to log the first DNF; then when you finally find it, you can post in your log that you have been looking off and on for however-many visits! Oh, but there might be an exception, if you have found out the specific spot and the cache is definitely not there (I met up with XXX who confirmed the cache was not where he found it last...) SO log that visit as your second DNF and maybe follow up with an email to the owner.

Why would it be dumb? Each visit might have its own unique circumstances. One time I couldn't find a cache because a car was parked right where the cache was hidden . . . and there was someone in the front seat taking a nap.

 

If I returned my search was interrupted by groundskeepers working in that area, that would be another story, and another reason for a DNF.

 

There is no shame in logging a DNF and it gives a more complete history of your cache hunts. It also gives a complete history of the cache and each visit by a cacher.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I will usually only log one DNF per cache. They know their cache is either evil or nasty. No need to inflate their egos too much. Three or four tries for the bison tube in the prickly evergreen? I'll only DNF that once. It's not a pleasant cache. If it weren't on someone's Ten Mile List, we wouldn't have attempted it more than once. Especially with the coords 75' off in the middle of the street, and cops questioning cachers...

Here, on the other fin, is a cache placed 10/2/2001, by a cacher or cachers, who has not even logged on in over two years. It's a classic! It's befuddled cachers for almost four years, and is still in good condition! Took me three tries, many hours of searching, and a good hint from someone who found it, over eight months, finally to bag this one! This one, I have no problem DNFing more than once. This is one of the classic caches in New Jersey! Alluvial Material