DNF - Temporary Or Forever

[+Blue Power Ranger]

When you log a DNF (Did Not Find) and then you later go back and find the cache, should you be deleting the original DNF log? I seem to see people going either way on this and I wasn't sure what the accepted standard was.

 

I have been logging the find but leaving my original DNF log for posterity.

[+LandRover]

Leave the DNF Log, it's part of your history. It can also be fun to go back once in a while to read those old DNF logs and wonder how you could have missed the cache.

[+beejay&esskay]

I leave the DNF. It's also part of the history of the cache. Don't rewrite (or delete) history.

[+JDandDD]

I agree. Leave the DNF. Its part of the history, gives the hider some information on the difficulty of the cache (they may change the rating or improve the hint if they get a lot of DNFs followed by finds, for example), and it tells other cachers to try a bit harder if they too have trouble finding the cache.

 

JDandDD

[+ghs]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

[+StarBrand]

Leave the DNF - after all - you didn't find it on that date - did you?

 

Log a found if you found it - a DNF if you didn't - simple enough.

[+Deneye]

Leave the DNF Log, it's part of your history. It can also be fun to go back once in a while to read those old DNF logs and wonder how you could have missed the cache.

 

You don't need to read your DNF log to experience those thoughts...

 

But I'd leave them in too..

[+briansnat]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

 

Three problems with this.

 

First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches.

 

Second, it doesn't update the "last found" date of the cache. This could throw off people who prefer to search for caches that have recent finds and discourage them from looking for the cache.

 

Finally, it alters the history of the cache. Finds and DNFs provide information to other geocachers. If they scan the logs and see some DNFs they will realize that the cache might take a little effort to find. If everyone sanitized their DNFs like you do, the cache could look a lot easier than it is. I know from a personal standpoint, if I see nothing but smiley faces, I'm not likely to search very long before I'll give up and assume the cache is gone. If I see DNFs sprinkled throughout the cache logs, I'll assume its not a slam dunk find and put in some extra effort.

Edited February 20, 2006 by briansnat

[+Team Neos]

I agree with the folks that say leave the original DNF(s). Briansnat had some good reasons. I have another: If a cache had no DNFs because everybody went back and changed theirs to finds, then you wouldn't really know how challenging the cache was, and you might feel discouraged when others said they found it and you couldn't. Some of the most exciting to find caches have multiple DNFs on them from the same people.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Thanks all for your input. I will keep doing what I have been doing.

 

I believe there are lots of cachers out there that do delete their DNF logs. Am I wrong about that?

[+beejay&esskay]

Thanks all for your input. I will keep doing what I have been doing.

 

I believe there are lots of cachers out there that do delete their DNF logs. Am I wrong about that?

 

I think you are correct that there are a number of cachers who delete DNFs once they found it. There is probably a larger number who will not log DNFs at all.

 

Both grouops mistake a DNF for "personal failure" instead of the correct understanding of a battle scar for an earnest attempt. (And there are many threads on this...with many who disagree.)

[+ghs]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

 

Three problems with this.

 

 

"First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches."

 

That confuses me. (Don't worry, it happens.) I clicked on the "Found it." Why doesn't that notify the owner?

 

 

"Second, it doesn't update the "last found" date of the cache. This could throw off people who prefer to search for caches that have recent finds and discourage them from looking for the cache."

 

Well, okay. I can see that as a problem sometimes. But 1) there were many recent finds just before I actually found it, and 2) although it's just a coincidence with this one, I actually did leave a note the day after I found it (indicating that I had edited my website log) because I wanted the owner to be aware that his cache log was slightly damp. (Maybe people should either leave the DNF as is and then log a find, or do what I did and then just leave a note on the right date. My original intent was to avoid cluttering the site with more logs than I thought the owner might want there.)

 

 

"Finally, it alters the history of the cache. Finds and DNFs provide information to other geocachers. If they scan the logs and see some DNFs they will realize that the cache might take a little effort to find. If everyone sanitized their DNFs like you do, the cache could look a lot easier than it is. I know from a personal standpoint, if I see nothing but smiley faces, I'm not likely to search very long before I'll give up and assume the cache is gone. If I see DNFs sprinkled throughout the cache logs, I'll assume its not a slam dunk find and put in some extra effort."

 

Well, that might be an issue if they just look at smiley faces, but I left everything in the log's text. They can read that and see where it took me four trips (go ahead, have a field day).

 

But okay. There's logic there. It's pretty much reinforcing a decision I already made to be more careful next time before prematurely logging a DNF. However, in regard to this one cache, it's sort of ironic that my inadvertently making things more challenging is seen as a problem. The entire description of this particular cache was written in a manner to make finding this cache much more challenging than it would have ordinarilly been. (Most of the difficulty in finding the cache arose from believing the description. He appeared to *want* people to believe it was easier than it was.) I suspect that my confuscating things worked to the advantage of the owner's goals. (I sure hope he appreciates that.)

 

Thanks.

[+kasma_gang]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

 

Three problems with this.

 

 

"First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches."

 

That confuses me. (Don't worry, it happens.) I clicked on the "Found it." Why doesn't that notify the owner?

 

 

"Second, it doesn't update the "last found" date of the cache. This could throw off people who prefer to search for caches that have recent finds and discourage them from looking for the cache."

 

Well, okay. I can see that as a problem sometimes. But 1) there were many recent finds just before I actually found it, and 2) although it's just a coincidence with this one, I actually did leave a note the day after I found it (indicating that I had edited my website log) because I wanted the owner to be aware that his cache log was slightly damp. (Maybe people should either leave the DNF as is and then log a find, or do what I did and then just leave a note on the right date. My original intent was to avoid cluttering the site with more logs than I thought the owner might want there.)

 

 

"Finally, it alters the history of the cache. Finds and DNFs provide information to other geocachers. If they scan the logs and see some DNFs they will realize that the cache might take a little effort to find. If everyone sanitized their DNFs like you do, the cache could look a lot easier than it is. I know from a personal standpoint, if I see nothing but smiley faces, I'm not likely to search very long before I'll give up and assume the cache is gone. If I see DNFs sprinkled throughout the cache logs, I'll assume its not a slam dunk find and put in some extra effort."

 

Well, that might be an issue if they just look at smiley faces, but I left everything in the log's text. They can read that and see where it took me four trips (go ahead, have a field day).

 

But okay. There's logic there. It's pretty much reinforcing a decision I already made to be more careful next time before prematurely logging a DNF. However, in regard to this one cache, it's sort of ironic that my inadvertently making things more challenging is seen as a problem. The entire description of this particular cache was written in a manner to make finding this cache much more challenging than it would have ordinarilly been. (Most of the difficulty in finding the cache arose from believing the description. He appeared to *want* people to believe it was easier than it was.) I suspect that my confuscating things worked to the advantage of the owner's goals. (I sure hope he appreciates that.)

 

Thanks.

 

I am totally new at this, but I have logged 2 DNF's and I am going back to find them, believe you me! I see it as a personal challenge and somehow that old honor system...if I went to find this cache on this day and did not find this cache on this day, then it is a DNF and I will log it as such, just seems the right thing to do. Then when (notice I didn't say if) I find it, there is a big ole Yahoo! for finding one I missed the first time out. It's like, gee, I don't know, not signing a log because the cache was out of my reach and deciding to call it a find anyway....but that's on another thread

Edited February 21, 2006 by kasma_gang

[+WeightMan]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

 

Three problems with this.

 

 

"First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches."

 

That confuses me. (Don't worry, it happens.) I clicked on the "Found it." Why doesn't that notify the owner?

 

 

You may have clicked on Found It, but it was still just an edit and editing a log does not generate an email to the owner. The only thing that generates an email is an original log of whatever sort. I did not know when my first hide was found by the FTF since they had already logged a DNF and then changed it to a Found and I did not get the email.

[+beejay&esskay]

"First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches."

 

That confuses me. (Don't worry, it happens.) I clicked on the "Found it." Why doesn't that notify the owner?

 

It's pretty much reinforcing a decision I already made to be more careful next time before prematurely logging a DNF

 

 

What he was referring to was changing a DNF to a Find. Those edits don't get sent to the cache owner (or anyone else watching the cache.)

 

And by "prematurely", I assume you mean while you are in the field still looking for it. The purists here would say that any search attempt that does not result in a find is a DNF. (I logged 3 DNFs on one cache before I finally found it.)

[+ghs]

 

 

You may have clicked on Found It, but it was still just an edit and editing a log does not generate an email to the owner. The only thing that generates an email is an original log of whatever sort. I did not know when my first hide was found by the FTF since they had already logged a DNF and then changed it to a Found and I did not get the email.

 

Oh, okay. Interesting. I guess that could be a problem for people who've hidden substantially more than my one cache. (I just check my cache page.) But as it is, I'm thinking about turning off my email notification option. (Well, I think there's an option for that.) I can't imagine how many emails people who've hidden a lot more than one cache get.

[CoyoteRed]

Leave the old DNF and write a new log.

[+briansnat]

I can't imagine how many emails people who've hidden a lot more than one cache get.

 

Not as many as you think. With over 100 active caches, I'll get maybe 10 logs on a busy weekend and sporadic

logs the rest of the time.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

 

Three problems with this.

 

First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches.

 

Second, it doesn't update the "last found" date of the cache. This could throw off people who prefer to search for caches that have recent finds and discourage them from looking for the cache.

 

Finally, it alters the history of the cache. Finds and DNFs provide information to other geocachers. If they scan the logs and see some DNFs they will realize that the cache might take a little effort to find. If everyone sanitized their DNFs like you do, the cache could look a lot easier than it is. I know from a personal standpoint, if I see nothing but smiley faces, I'm not likely to search very long before I'll give up and assume the cache is gone. If I see DNFs sprinkled throughout the cache logs, I'll assume its not a slam dunk find and put in some extra effort.

 

I believe that all original DNFs should be left in place, for all the reasons that Brian has iterated, plus:

doing so preserves also the history of the cacher, as well as preserving the adventure tales they have woven around not only their finds but their DNF. Many of my most creative and fun posts about adventures are to be found in my DNF logs!

[+tozainamboku]

Another reason for keeping all your DNF logs - if you're into stats - you can divide your find count by the total number of found and DNF logs to get your geocaching average (kind of like a batting average) that gives the percentage of time your cache hunts are successful. Mine is .873

 

In my case one cache owner deleted a couple of my DNF logs after I subsequently went back and found the caches. I guess he didn't like having DNFs on his caches. Now, everytime I compute my geocaching average I have to remember to add two to my DNF count

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Another reason for keeping all your DNF logs - if you're into stats - you can divide your find count by the total number of found and DNF logs to get your geocaching average (kind of like a batting average) that gives the percentage of time your cache hunts are successful. Mine is .873

 

Ooh, a batting average, now that is something I can relate to. I am batting .911 - (Of course, I took a couple of walks in there and the game was called on account of rain during an at bat a couple of times too.)

Edited February 21, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger