Why Don't People Log Their Dnf's?

[+Ed_S]

First of all, we all know 'way more cachers who DON'T post to this forum than those who do. Of those who don't post here, how many of them log DNFs? One or two, maybe. Most cachers don't log DNFs. And that's just the way it is. Most can't be bothered with useless (in their eyes) logging - they go caching to find caches, not to post on the internet.

 

Now, why do you who do post DNFs all make the same erroneous assumptions? You assume people who don't post DNFs do so because they don't want to be humiliated by having a DNF associated with their name. Or that they're so into the numbers that they don't want to tarnish their record. Consider this: most cachers don't log DNFs. I say most of them don't do so simply because they don't want to. There's no big ego-stroking, vanity-related plot to denigrate those who choose to log DNFs. So why do you all get so "holier-than-thou" on the subject? Why does it bother you so much? I'll also observe most non-DNFers who do happen to look at this folder stay out of the discussion because they don't want to hear the same tired old insults and garbage.

 

How 'bout if we start picking on everyone who has more posts in Groundspeak than they do finds? What a bunch of losers - they really need to get out of their moms' basements and get a life! They obviously are so insecure that they stay safely inside, where they can't twist an ankle or get scratched by a thorn. All they do is post and tell people what to do and how to do it, whey they haven't been outside yet this millenium!

 

Or let's not let anyone post here until they have at least 100 finds and have been caching at least one year. Those with less time and finds than that couldn't possibly have enough experience to contribute anything worthwhile here. All they do is post the same old tiresome drivel that everyone's seen just last month.

 

These and other ridiculous topics have been beat to death time and again. It's time to add the "DNF Snobs" subject to this list. Instead of telling someone else how YOU think they should play the game, just go find a cache yourself, or, better yet, go hide one!

[+Klutzy_Troll]

Well I guess I have nothing worth while to contribute to the forums because of my lack of more than 100 finds. So I suppose I will no longer bother, granted I haven't posted more than I have found but I guess I'm getting close. People are entitled to their opinions but I guess it only matters if you have reached a certain quota, oh well. Sad

[+Sagefox]

...Most cachers don't log DNFs. And that's just the way it is. Most can't be bothered with useless (in their eyes) logging - they go caching to find caches, not to post on the internet.

 

 

I'm not convinced that this is true. No way to know really but I get plenty of dnf's posted to our caches and almost all of them are relatively easy to find. I believe I can safely assume that most cachers are logging their dnf's at our caches. I see plenty of dnf's logged at cache sites we visit spread out over our commonly cached range between Las Vegas, Sacramento and Seattle.

 

As for "most can't be bothered with usless logging", I have 48 logbooks in a drawer (just counted them) and the number of non-computer logger type entries runs between 10 and 15%. We had one cache located on a game shelf in a coffeehouse that was very popular and available to muggles and cachers alike. It was in place from 2002 through late 2005 and never got muggled. I kept a tally of computer vs. non-computer loggers. It ran about 50% for each. Still, though, only about 10% of the non-computer logging entries were by geocachers. All the others were coffeehouse muggles.

 

Now, why do you who do post DNFs all make the same erroneous assumptions? You assume people who don't post DNFs do so because they don't want to be humiliated by having a DNF associated with their name. Or that they're so into the numbers that they don't want to tarnish their record.

 

I don't think this is true either, that we "all make the same assumption" . It's been clearly shown that people who claim to post dnf's have major disagreements in the forums about what a dnf represents and how best to log them.

Edited April 2, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[+Ed_S]

I'm not convinced that this is true. No way to know really but I get plenty of dnf's posted to our caches and almost all of them are relatively easy to find. I believe I can safely assume that most cachers are logging their dnf's at our caches. I see plenty of dnf's logged at cache sites we visit spread out over our commonly cached range between Las Vegas, Sacramento and Seattle.

 

Look at people who, when they post a find, also say "this was the second/third/etc. time I was here . . ." and see if they posted DNFs for those times they were there but did not find it. Around here, few people post DNFs but many say they looked on other occasions than their find. But let's get back to what I posted - how many cachers have you met? How many of them log DNFs? Here in the NE Ohio/NW PA area, DNFs are not the norm. They're not as rare as they used to be, but you can go pages and pages without seeing one.

 

As for "most can't be bothered with usless logging", I have 48 logbooks in a drawer (just counted them) and the number of non-computer logger type entries runs between 10 and 15%.

 

Yes, but my term "useless logging" was meant to refer to logging anything other than a find. The mindset is, 'when you find a cache, you log it. When you don't, you don't.'

 

It's been clearly shown that people who claim to post dnf's have major disagreements in the forums about what a dnf represents and how best to log them.

 

True enough. The discussions don't rank up there with The Endless Micro Debate and other topics that have been pounded into the ground and then some, but I do recall seeing threads about the finer points of 'DNF-ing.' I generally skip those, though, because invariably someone asserts how big and bad and tough they are because they post DNFs, and it goes into the bashing of those who don't log 'em.

[+Ed_S]

Well I guess I have nothing worth while to contribute to the forums because of my lack of more than 100 finds. So I suppose I will no longer bother, granted I haven't posted more than I have found but I guess I'm getting close. People are entitled to their opinions but I guess it only matters if you have reached a certain quota, oh well. Sad

 

You really should learn to read what's written.

[+SunshineGang]

we wish more people would log thier DNF's. DNF does not mean that the cache is MIA. just means you did not find it. Perhaps you ran out of time or daylight, the park was closing does not mean that you are a not a good cacher

 

but I think it is an ego thing.

 

I do have a bit of an ego but I usually log my DNFs.

 

On the flip side it really boosts my ego when someone DNF's one of my tricky caches.

[+jasond]

On the flip side it really boosts my ego when someone DNF's one of my tricky caches.

 

Bingo! I love that feeling too. It's okay to get an PM from a seeker saying that they couldn't find it and requesting a hint, but an online, (semi-)permanent log of the event is even better. I subscribe to the logic that all caches are not meant to be found by all seekers, and knowing that I can outsmart a skilled cacher on his first attempt at my cache is excellent.

 

Partly for this reason, I log my DNF's now too. This enables future hunters to see that I have searched and not found it. I know if one of the cachers I've met recently logged a DNF for a new cache, I'd rush out and see if I can find it just to see if I'm "better" than him. I think that others might do the same.

 

Logging a DNF also gives the hider more feedback as to whether he should increase the difficulty rating of the cache and it can help determine if other cachers go looking for a cache. If a team of 5 people with >3000 finds can't find a cache, I wouldn't attempt it if I was a new cacher.

 

Finally, DNF's are important because they let the community know about a possible MIA cache. If I'm planning a big caching trip 2 hours from home, I'm not going to waste time searching for a cache where the 3 most recent logs are DNF's. Without those DNF logs, I could be wasting 30 minutes that would be better served hunting additional caches.

 

To be honest, I can't see the benefits of not logging a DNF. It saves, what, about a minute of online logging?

[+backinthesaddle]

A much respected local cacher, who in fact has done some coding for geocaching.com posted (to his credit) a DNF on the first few days after cache of mine was posted, and sent me an e-mail to the effect that it was missing already. The same day, on my bike ride, I investigated, considering his reputation. The cache was indeed there. And, when I got home there were two new finds posted from other caches. All well and good, but the first cacher had deleted his previous DNF post! Is this kosher?

[+Ed & Julie]

Look at people who, when they post a find, also say "this was the second/third/etc. time I was here . . ." and see if they posted DNFs for those times they were there but did not find it. Around here, few people post DNFs but many say they looked on other occasions than their find. But let's get back to what I posted - how many cachers have you met? How many of them log DNFs? Here in the NE Ohio/NW PA area, DNFs are not the norm. They're not as rare as they used to be, but you can go pages and pages without seeing one.

 

If it's a cache I have look for 5 times, you will find the same amount of DNF posts from me for that cache. I log every attempt until it's found.

Edited April 11, 2006 by The Badge & the Butterfly

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

How 'bout if we start picking on everyone who has more posts in Groundspeak than they do finds? What a bunch of losers - they really need to get out of their moms' basements and get a life! They obviously are so insecure that they stay safely inside, where they can't twist an ankle or get scratched by a thorn. All they do is post and tell people what to do and how to do it, whey they haven't been outside yet this millenium!

 

While I realize the above was meant to be somewhat facetious, and the point you're trying to make with it is quite good actually, there are other reasons to have more forum posts than finds. Between work and two small kids who can't just run out with me on a whim to every cache, it is often a lot easier with the time I have to get on a home computers and contribute with a forum post than having to load people into a car and then do a considerable walk to a cache. As someone who hates being indoors when it's nice out, I wish I had more finds than posts and try to go when I can, but just thought I'd note it. In the time it takes me to even find a 1/1, I can probably have a few forum posts typed up so it's not an accurate barometer.

 

The famous (or infamous) Markwell has something like a 10-1 forum post/find ratio, I really really doubt he needs to get a life Just look at his profile.....

Edited April 11, 2006 by hairymon