Jump to content

Could Not Find


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I have only been doing this for a short time but I noticed something almost immediately. It seems that the difficult ones aren't hunted as often and the majority of these are found ACCORDING TO THE LOGS. I have been logging everything exactly as it uccors. I get the impression that there are many who seek and if they cant find it, they dont want to admit it on the log. Maybe I'm just paranoid but take this quick check and tell me what you think.

 

Find two caches (one difficult and one easy) that are near each other to the extent that the typical hunter would go for both if he were hunting caches.....pick a weekend with nice weather and watch the logs. Tell me if according to the logs, the easy one was hunted alot and the difficult one wasn't. When in reality, both would probably be hunted and only the easy one found.

 

I haven't hidden a cache yet but I assume you guys that go thru the trouble of hiding them, you want to hear even about the CNF attempts. Just an observation......has anyone else noticed this trend?

 

Army Pathfinder

Link to comment

I have only been doing this for a short time but I noticed something almost immediately. It seems that the difficult ones aren't hunted as often and the majority of these are found ACCORDING TO THE LOGS. I have been logging everything exactly as it uccors. I get the impression that there are many who seek and if they cant find it, they dont want to admit it on the log. Maybe I'm just paranoid but take this quick check and tell me what you think.

 

Find two caches (one difficult and one easy) that are near each other to the extent that the typical hunter would go for both if he were hunting caches.....pick a weekend with nice weather and watch the logs. Tell me if according to the logs, the easy one was hunted alot and the difficult one wasn't. When in reality, both would probably be hunted and only the easy one found.

 

I haven't hidden a cache yet but I assume you guys that go thru the trouble of hiding them, you want to hear even about the CNF attempts. Just an observation......has anyone else noticed this trend?

 

Army Pathfinder

 

While some folks do not file Did Not Find logs (DNFs), and some do not even file actual finds online, many do, and most cache owners and hunters vastly prefer to see DNFs, as they are part of the history of the cache and also often contain funny tales!

We regularly log all DNFs, and we love to read DNFs on our caches!

Link to comment

You're probably right. Thing is, after 50 or 60 finds, you know that a person who hunted caches A and C and appears to have skipped "B" probably failed to find it (this time). So...there you go. You know it's tougher. The stars at the top of the cache page will probably coincide with that conclusion.

 

I could certainly be accused of failing to log DNFs. I log a DNF if:

-I can see that the cache has been muggled (pieces of it strewn around, or it's "footprint" is left in the mud).

-I had a noteworthy experience failing to find it, and think others may be interested or entertained by that experience

-I couldn't find it and am not likely to return to the area soon

 

By my personal "rules", I don't log a DNF until I have given up. It may take me several visits to find the cache, but I figure it's not a DNF, it's a HFY (Haven't Found it Yet). I call these "herfies". If I approach a spot full of trash with a nearby transient camp, I might poke around for 5 minutes, leave and log a DNF because I do not plan to return. But, if it's a nice tricky hide and I spend 40 futile minutes hunting, then obsess on possiblities all the way home, I call it a herfy. Since there are no limits on how long a hunt takes, I don't see a problem with this. Once I do find a herfy, I log that it required multiple trips, just in case someone cares. If the cache is truly diabolical, ie. intended to be very difficult for a cacher to find, I would probably log a DNF every time I tried just so the cache owner could get their well-earned kicks from my frustration.

 

PS. Some folks feel that a DNF log is a dire thing to use sparingly. They claim that to do so is to be alarmist (as if implying the cache is missing when it's just your lack of geomojo) or somehow insulting to the cache owner.

Link to comment

By my personal "rules", I don't log a DNF until I have given up. It may take me several visits to find the cache, but I figure it's not a DNF, it's a HFY (Haven't Found it Yet). I call these "herfies".

 

Great thought!!!! I love it. I almost always log my DNF's, but I usually return until I find it. I guess those would be "Herfies" I don't give up very easily!

Link to comment

If I started off after the cache upon arriving in the general location and started on my adventure, for whatever reason I did not find the cache I will log my DNF. I dont like to call them did not find but rather than did not finish. The log provides information to the owner as well as others seeking the cache.

 

I look at it this way if I attempted to look for the cache and did not find it = DNF, adding a coment or some other fluff to the listing = NOTE.

 

You took the time to hide the cache for me to find, you deserve the feedback with the logs even it it is a TNLNSL message.

Link to comment

There are a number of folks around here that will post a message saying they had not found it but will be back to try again rather than post a DNF and some others that make a quick attempt and then post a DNF.

 

I guess the only issue is that if someone sees 3 or 4 DNFs in a row they assume the cache is not there and will skip it. I know I do that sometimes. Some of my caches are fairly difficult for the inexperienced so I tend to get more DNFs on them. What I have been doing is posting a messge after about 3 DNF posts and I verify the cache is there and in good shape. That also helps those who are watching the cache.

 

Personally I don't care if I get a posted message, a DNF or an email, but I like to know someone missed it. Then I can decide if I need to go have a look and check on the cache. Or, I just snicker because my cache outwitted another good cacher. See the logs for GCTQ3P, it has about 6 DNF entries. Some make multiple attempts at this one before getting it.

 

The feedback also helps me plan new caches when I learn what works and what does not. I am always pleasantly surprized by how smart and resourseful cachers can be.

Edited by two left feet
Link to comment

Also some cachers are just in it for the numbers, so they;re not going to waste their time hunting for the harder caches

I think that you are making a huge assumption.

 

Some people skip harder caches because of time constraints. Some people believe that the fun is finding cool locations, rather than hunting for a devilishly hidden cache. These people may skip the harder ones. I know a cacher that got sick from a tick bite. Unless there is snow on the ground, he isn't going after anything but urban micros. Some people don't care for long hikes, so they skip caches that require them.

 

There are a million reasons why a cacher may not go after more 'difficult' caches.

Link to comment
PS. Some folks feel that a DNF log is a dire thing to use sparingly. They claim that to do so is to be alarmist (as if implying the cache is missing when it's just your lack of geomojo) or somehow insulting to the cache owner.

 

I know some people have this attitude, but I'm not sure where it came from. A DNF should mean one thing, you attempted to find the cache and you didn't. At least that was the original purpose. Then again, the concept of what a "Found It" means has devolved to where it doesn't necessarily include finding a cache to a segment of geocachers - so I'm not surprised that some geocachers have also changed the meaning of a DNF.

 

As a cache owner I can assure anyone who reads this that a DNF is not insulting. I want to know that people are hunting my caches, regardless of the outcome.

Link to comment

We've got two beginner caches in the same park, Azalea Park Cache and "Christmas-y" Tree. The former is a traditional and the later a multi. The multi is a simple walk around the park and it highlights the metal statues. A local's 6 year old did the puzzle associated with it, it's that simple. The traditional, as of this date, has 161 logged finds and the multi has 93.

 

You will find that even the simplest multis will not even be hunted as often as most traditionals, even harder traditionals.

 

Being a puzzle/unknown cache adds something different to the dynamic. Some folks will sit at home and try to figure out those puzzles they can and then while on a cache run try to find that cache. After all, once you figure out your typical puzzle cache it then generally becomes, in effect, a traditional. But even then they will not be hunted nearly as often as a traditional.

Link to comment

Also some cachers are just in it for the numbers, so they;re not going to waste their time hunting for the harder caches

I think that you are making a huge assumption.

 

Some people skip harder caches because of time constraints. Some people believe that the fun is finding cool locations, rather than hunting for a devilishly hidden cache. These people may skip the harder ones. I know a cacher that got sick from a tick bite. Unless there is snow on the ground, he isn't going after anything but urban micros. Some people don't care for long hikes, so they skip caches that require them.

 

There are a million reasons why a cacher may not go after more 'difficult' caches.

You know what happens when you assume

 

like you said, Some people skip harder caches because of time restraints.

And that is what numbers cachers usually do when they are out to rack up the numbers.

I know of cachers that allow a set length of time for each cache if the cache isn't found in that length of time they move on to the next cache

Link to comment

I have to agree with the posts above, but a lot of times people just start a cache too late in the day and decide they will come back to look later (No DNF). Like all good intentions though, some of those take awhile to come back. On the other hand, I have actually met cachers looking for my caches who didn't even leave a DNF when they were caught in the act! In the end a DNF is for you as much as for anyone else. Log'em and love'm because they're usually more interesting than the "Found in 37 seconds, TNLNSL" logs. B)

Link to comment

I agree that the DNF posts are often the most interesting stories. I am in the group of those that think that anytime you look for a cache and don't sign the log, a DNF should be logged.

 

The question becomes whether I 'looked' for a cache. I usually don't log a DNF unless I had arrived at ground zero. Otherwise, I sometimes leave a note, sometimes not.

 

For instance, if I am driving to the next cache and run out of time - no DNF, no note. If I am walking to a cache and I blow off the search due to rain, maybe I leave a note.

Link to comment

The question becomes whether I 'looked' for a cache. I usually don't log a DNF unless I had arrived at ground zero. Otherwise, I sometimes leave a note, sometimes not.

 

Exactly. This is the method most useful to others.

 

It also represents the most accurate record of the finder's activity. I track my dnf's and all other geocaching and benchmark activity in a spreadsheet. I have two columns for dnf's: one for when I got skunked and one for when the container was missing (as verified by subsequent visitors). I suppose I could start a third column for the number of times I got out of the car and gave up before a ground zero search but that information would not be very useful.

 

A dnf posted for an aborted attempt (not anywhere near the container site) will kick a log entry off the short version cache page that might provide a needed hint to the next one attempting the cache.

Link to comment

I don't log most of my finds online unless there's something vaguely interesting about it. I only log DNFs when I think there's a chance the cache may be gone instead of me just not being able to find it. As noted above, to some this is a numbers game and I find that somewhat distasteful.

 

My son and I enjoy caching and benchmark hunting together, and by the time we get back from a long day of cache hunting, I'm generally not in the mood to spend a bunch of time logging every cache we went to. I log the highlights and move on.

Link to comment

... I only log DNFs when I think there's a chance the cache may be gone instead of me just not being able to find it. ...

Just out of curiosity, how do you make that determination? I understand if you find a knocked over pile of sticks next to tree with a depression in the middle shaped like an ammo can, but other than that, how can you tell?

 

Somebody else can jump in about the rudeness factor in not logging all you finds.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

 

Just out of curiosity, how do you make that determination? I understand if you find a knocked over pile of sticks next to tree with a depression in the middle shaped like an ammo can, but other than that, how can you tell?

 

Generally, I'll try several times to find it. If I can't find it after several attempts, or the area's been disturbed, etc. I'll check the logs and see how long ago it was found or not found.

 

Somebody else can jump in about the rudeness factor in not logging all you finds.

 

And maybe I can jump in about the rudness factor of expecting other people to play the game your way.

 

A cache is a box and a logbook. I sign the book for the cache itself. The sport's in the hunt, not in the log. If people are really in need of that much validation for what they've done in placing a cache, they can go get the logbook from the cache and read it.

 

It's arrogant pronouncements like this one that make me even *less* likely to log online. Just exactly who do you think you are to imply that I'm rude? I trade up, I play the game as it's meant to be played and I play nice with other people's caches. I even do maintenance on caches for people who don't have the time.

 

I don't have to justify anything to you or anyone else. You're not the arbiter of the proper conduct of the sport.

Link to comment

My own personal way of doing DNF's is I log every visit. For me it helps me track my history of my caching experiences. I usually put something like "I'll come back and try later" or something to that effect. I haven't run across a muggled cache but I would log this as a DNF as well.

Link to comment

<some stuff was here>

And maybe I can jump in about the rudness factor of expecting other people to play the game your way.

<other stuff was here>

Wow, that was some post. Suffice it to say that I don't make it a habit to tell people how to play the game. Read a few threads and you'll see that this is true.

 

Back to the issue, you made two statements. The first was that you only log a DNF when you think the cache is missing. To this I have to question whether a non-finder is qualified to make the determination that it is, indeed, missing. By not logging a DNF, the cache owner has no clue that something might be up with the cache. Therefore, not logging a DNF is rude to the cache owner and any cachers that look for it after you.

 

Your second statement was dealing with the fact that you only log some of your finds, when you feel like it. The problem with this is that the cache owners put them out there for you to find. You accepted their offer. The least you could do is tell them that the cache is there, whether it is in good condition, and if you liked it. This isn't much to ask, but it is rude, in my opinion, not to log your finds. I realize that some may disagree, but I don't think the fact that some people may or may not be numbers-hounds or that you are tired are reasonable reasons to not log your finds. (BTW, if your tired, log them tomorrow or the next day, or next week or month...)

Link to comment

<some stuff was here>

And maybe I can jump in about the rudness factor of expecting other people to play the game your way.

<other stuff was here>

Wow, that was some post. Suffice it to say that I don't make it a habit to tell people how to play the game. Read a few threads and you'll see that this is true.

 

 

Except, of course that you just did. I have no need or desire to justify anything to you. This is exactly why I don't log finds most of the time- aside from just not wanting to be bothered doing something again (I already signed the physical logbook), I just don't see the need. And then I end up having to deal with people like yourself who place themselves in a position to pass judgement on my behavior, as though you had that right- which you don't. It's also why I don't go to events. Maybe I'm just an iconoclast, but people who perceive rudeness in others because they don't follow their way of doing things really get my hackles up.

 

If the cache owner is concerned about the state of their cache, they should hump out to it and check on it. If they want to see who's visited it, they should change out the log book and go home to read the old one with a glass of singlemalt.

 

I reject categorically the notion that not logging online is rude. Online logs are a numbers game and cache owners can delete them at will- they're absolutely meaningless. I stand by the way I do things. I seek carefully, I CITO, I don't damage the environment or the cache, I trade up (sometimes I trade WAY up, because I love to leave stuff that people enjoy finding), and I play the game in all respects as it should be played. A cache is a container and a logbook at a minimum, and I don't have to do anything other than visit the container and sign the logbook in order to satisfy the "rules" of the "game". The online logs are a useful tool, but it gets my back up when people start attaching some sort of expected behavior based on their own patterns of play and thought and then have the audacity- the outright arrogance- to claim other people are being rude for not following said "rules".

 

Tell you what. Just to be consistent, from now on, I won't log anything online at all. If I think a cache is gone, muggled, damaged or destroyed, I'll email the cache owner. And no, I don't need to explain my reasoning in such matters to you or anyone else.

 

To those who think I'm overreacting or just being rude, you have to understand something about me. I'm a FIERCELY independent person. I don't react well to being told what to do. I react even more poorly to condescending pronouncements based on nothing more than some sort of groupthink. One way to get me hacked off really quickly is to imply that I'm somehow lacking in some way because I don't share your precepts.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you hide a cache, I'll try to find it. But you have no right to expect that I'll do anything more than that. It's not impolite to follow the rules of the game and seek the cache, take something, leave something and sign the logbook. It's also not impolite to seek the cache, fail to find it and move on to another one. Simple courtesy means that I'll let you know if it looks like the cache is really gone or something. But that's it. The implied contract doesn't go any further than that. If I ever hide a cache that got zero finds online, but a hundred in the physical log, I'd consider that a successful and popular cache. But the very last thing I'd do was hide a cache just to see blobs of text on a web site- frankly, that's just silly and my opinion is that if you're hiding a cache to get the online logs, you're hiding it for the wrong reason.

 

You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but I'm entitled to mine as well.

Link to comment

WOW...will the DNF police never tire of patting themselves on the back, or of chastising people who don't log DNFs the way they do...how many open threads on this topic are needed at any given time?

 

Jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

Nobody is wrong in this discussion. Courtesy goes both ways, when I weblog a find and it's deleted by the owner unilaterally for whatever reason, that's doubly rude. First, the cache is placed and listed to be found, then the find is disallowed after the fact. If I signed the log, I should get a smiley, but quite a few owners have different opinions on exactly what qualifies as a find. Consequently, I have a few more finds than smileys. Once confronted with such rudeness, a cacher is obliged to follow any procedure they find most suitable regarding this activity.

Link to comment

My nickles worth..

 

Each cacher and each hider are different. Each have different values and different reasons for geocaching. No one is going to agree all the times with other forum users. Some prefer to not log in their finds or DNFs but use the forumns. Others like to log and not use forums, and some like to do all. Each to their own.

 

I am putting out 15 caches within the next few months. I would like to see some DNFS just for the purpose of rating the cache, the chances of muggled caches(some in public parks).

 

My wife and I found one cache, that if I would have had grandchildren with us, like we do at times I would have ruled it a DNF. I would have logged it as DNF due to enviroment concerns.. And then I would email the person who hide cache..

 

The concerns could be either storms approaching, covered with 5 feet of snow and such.

This one cache I spoke about above was on a 300 foot cliff 7 foot from edge and terain level to get there a 1.... Parked 25 foot away.... Not a good place to have a cache that was set up for all ages....

 

I use geocaching for a stress reducer from work, also and most important to me, is to see new areas and to teach grandchildren about different things... the indian rock art and artifacts we have seen....the amythist crystals we have found along our hikes....the prehistoric animal tracks and bones we have seen.

 

A numbers game to some, a log in can only for others, a TNLN for some, travel bug moving for others. Each of us interparate the caching a different way...Enjoy the way you have devised for yourself...

 

As for myself I log in the cans, I log online, I email some cachers and hiders. That is my way

Link to comment

<some stuff was here>

And maybe I can jump in about the rudness factor of expecting other people to play the game your way.

<other stuff was here>

Wow, that was some post. Suffice it to say that I don't make it a habit to tell people how to play the game. Read a few threads and you'll see that this is true.

 

 

Except, of course that you just did. I have no need or desire to justify anything to you. This is exactly why I don't log finds most of the time- aside from just not wanting to be bothered doing something again (I already signed the physical logbook), I just don't see the need. And then I end up having to deal with people like yourself who place themselves in a position to pass judgement on my behavior, as though you had that right- which you don't. It's also why I don't go to events. Maybe I'm just an iconoclast, but people who perceive rudeness in others because they don't follow their way of doing things really get my hackles up.

 

If the cache owner is concerned about the state of their cache, they should hump out to it and check on it. If they want to see who's visited it, they should change out the log book and go home to read the old one with a glass of singlemalt.

 

I reject categorically the notion that not logging online is rude. Online logs are a numbers game and cache owners can delete them at will- they're absolutely meaningless. I stand by the way I do things. I seek carefully, I CITO, I don't damage the environment or the cache, I trade up (sometimes I trade WAY up, because I love to leave stuff that people enjoy finding), and I play the game in all respects as it should be played. A cache is a container and a logbook at a minimum, and I don't have to do anything other than visit the container and sign the logbook in order to satisfy the "rules" of the "game". The online logs are a useful tool, but it gets my back up when people start attaching some sort of expected behavior based on their own patterns of play and thought and then have the audacity- the outright arrogance- to claim other people are being rude for not following said "rules".

 

Tell you what. Just to be consistent, from now on, I won't log anything online at all. If I think a cache is gone, muggled, damaged or destroyed, I'll email the cache owner. And no, I don't need to explain my reasoning in such matters to you or anyone else.

 

To those who think I'm overreacting or just being rude, you have to understand something about me. I'm a FIERCELY independent person. I don't react well to being told what to do. I react even more poorly to condescending pronouncements based on nothing more than some sort of groupthink. One way to get me hacked off really quickly is to imply that I'm somehow lacking in some way because I don't share your precepts.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you hide a cache, I'll try to find it. But you have no right to expect that I'll do anything more than that. It's not impolite to follow the rules of the game and seek the cache, take something, leave something and sign the logbook. It's also not impolite to seek the cache, fail to find it and move on to another one. Simple courtesy means that I'll let you know if it looks like the cache is really gone or something. But that's it. The implied contract doesn't go any further than that. If I ever hide a cache that got zero finds online, but a hundred in the physical log, I'd consider that a successful and popular cache. But the very last thing I'd do was hide a cache just to see blobs of text on a web site- frankly, that's just silly and my opinion is that if you're hiding a cache to get the online logs, you're hiding it for the wrong reason.

 

You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but I'm entitled to mine as well.

 

:laughing: Holy smokes! Just think of all the online logs you could have done in the time you took to write that! :laughing:

Link to comment

I expressed my thoughts on the lack of online logging in another thread, and I got jumped on already - so I won't waste my breath here.

 

I'll just add: Imagine how exciting geocaching would be if no one logged online at all?

 

If anyone out there is not going to log my caches online, please consider that I didn't put them out for you and add them to your ignore list.

Link to comment

I love to leave stuff that people enjoy finding

And you know they enjoy finding the stuff you leave because you go back and check the logs on caches you've found regularly, since they aren't logging online either. That's great dedication and also helps with the numbers problem, since those regular visits to caches to read the physical logs consume more and more time every month and leave less time to run up caching numbers.

 

You've got a right to play the game the way you want.

 

I'm really not very dedicated at all - after I leave good stuff, I just watch the cache online and see when people enjoy a cache I've placed, or a TB I've released or a geocoin I've dropped.

Link to comment

 

I'll just add: Imagine how exciting geocaching would be if no one logged online at all?

 

 

If you define the excitement of geocaching by logging online or reading online logs, you're not exactly getting the point of the sport.

 

If anyone out there is not going to log my caches online, please consider that I didn't put them out for you and add them to your ignore list.

 

If you're going to put out caches with strings attached for the finders, please consider not putting them out at all. If you hide caches with such expectations, you're being rude to people who find your cache.

 

Cache= (box+logbook.)

 

Cache != (box + online log)

Link to comment

And you know they enjoy finding the stuff you leave because you go back and check the logs on caches you've found regularly, since they aren't logging online either.

 

Of course not. I leave things with the hope that someone will enjoy it. I'm sure that the items I leave behind in caches are found by someone who likes them. But I don't base my enjoyment of what I do on that, nor do I follow the logs to see who bothered to log that they took some trinket I left behind.

 

That's great dedication and also helps with the numbers problem, since those regular visits to caches to read the physical logs consume more and more time every month and leave less time to run up caching numbers.

 

And here I thought I was the cynical one. I like to read the physical logs of the caches I visit when I visit them. It's fun to see the patterns of visits by the other cachers in my area. I've been trying to come up with a signature item, once I saw some of the really inexpensive but totally cool trinkets some of the other folks around here leave behind.

 

When I leave something behind at a cache, I've had my fun. The fun of it is leaving something that someone- I have no idea who- will enjoy or take home. But I'm not going to parse the logs every five minutes trying to see who took some widget I left behind.

 

You've got a right to play the game the way you want.

 

*bow* Thanks. :laughing:

 

I'm really not very dedicated at all - after I leave good stuff, I just watch the cache online and see when people enjoy a cache I've placed, or a TB I've released or a geocoin I've dropped.

 

Travel bugs and geocoins are, by their very nature, only "useful" when logged online. Unlike a cache, which is a logbook in a container, with the online log being (in my mind) superfluous, travel bugs, geocoins and other trackables have to be logged online in order for their part in the game to work.

 

I have one TB, which I hope gets logged by people online. I also make sure I log every coin or trackable item; if I'm going to take them from a cache, I've implicitly agreed to the owners' wishes and the process of handling TB/trackables.

 

I also act as a TB ferry from Olympia to Seattle and vice/versa. Since I live 75 miles from where I work, I can carry TBs and trackables every day a long way, which I enjoy doing. I like helping TB owners out, that part of the game is fun. But the "rules" of that involve online logging implicitly- it's not an extracurricular activity to log a TB online, it's the core of the process.

Edited by Cyclometh
Link to comment

 

I'll just add: Imagine how exciting geocaching would be if no one logged online at all?

 

 

If you define the excitement of geocaching by logging online or reading online logs, you're not exactly getting the point of the sport.

 

If anyone out there is not going to log my caches online, please consider that I didn't put them out for you and add them to your ignore list.

 

If you're going to put out caches with strings attached for the finders, please consider not putting them out at all. If you hide caches with such expectations, you're being rude to people who find your cache.

 

Cache= (box+logbook.)

 

Cache != (box + online log)

 

Think of it as pre-emptive. ;->

Link to comment

There are a number of practical reasons to be sparing with DNF logs. The best is to avoid rewarding sadistic hiders.

 

DNFs don't reward us. We place them because SOME experienced cachers enjoy them and say so in their 3 to 4 return visit posts. The final find rewards us. We WANT them to be found, just not easily. I rate mine with an appropriate level of difficulty so it will not surprize or frustrate a new cacher. My 1/1 cache gets a lot more visits than a 2/3 cache but I expect that and my multi gets less traffic yet. But most of my logs are more than TNLNSL.

 

Back on topic; DNF is not a bad thing, but you do have to monitor the cache because 4 DNF in a row could stop all attempts to find it.

Link to comment
Online logs are a numbers game...

 

Only to those who make it one. I don't give a clam's patootie about numbers, but log all my finds. To me its a courtesy to the cache owner.

 

Amen. Brian hit it right on the head. Logged finds are numbers game only for some, and, in fact, they are a minority. I do not give a darn about numbers, but I always log all visits to a cache, all finds, and all DNFs for the cache. It is not only a courtesy and a way of saying thanks to the cache owner, but to the entire geocaching community, particularly those who either have watchlisted the cache or who visit the cache page regularly.

Link to comment

Also some cachers are just in it for the numbers, so they;re not going to waste their time hunting for the harder caches

I think that you are making a huge assumption.

 

Some people skip harder caches because of time constraints. Some people believe that the fun is finding cool locations, rather than hunting for a devilishly hidden cache. These people may skip the harder ones. I know a cacher that got sick from a tick bite. Unless there is snow on the ground, he isn't going after anything but urban micros. Some people don't care for long hikes, so they skip caches that require them.

 

There are a million reasons why a cacher may not go after more 'difficult' caches.

 

Yep and some people cache with small children. So don't assume that if a higher difficulty one is near others that I have logged, that I attempted it also and just did not log my DNF.

Link to comment

You're probably right. Thing is, after 50 or 60 finds, you know that a person who hunted caches A and C and appears to have skipped "B" probably failed to find it (this time). So...there you go. You know it's tougher. The stars at the top of the cache page will probably coincide with that conclusion.

 

I could certainly be accused of failing to log DNFs. I log a DNF if:

-I can see that the cache has been muggled (pieces of it strewn around, or it's "footprint" is left in the mud).

-I had a noteworthy experience failing to find it, and think others may be interested or entertained by that experience

-I couldn't find it and am not likely to return to the area soon

 

By my personal "rules", I don't log a DNF until I have given up. It may take me several visits to find the cache, but I figure it's not a DNF, it's a HFY (Haven't Found it Yet). I call these "herfies". If I approach a spot full of trash with a nearby transient camp, I might poke around for 5 minutes, leave and log a DNF because I do not plan to return. But, if it's a nice tricky hide and I spend 40 futile minutes hunting, then obsess on possiblities all the way home, I call it a herfy. Since there are no limits on how long a hunt takes, I don't see a problem with this. Once I do find a herfy, I log that it required multiple trips, just in case someone cares. If the cache is truly diabolical, ie. intended to be very difficult for a cacher to find, I would probably log a DNF every time I tried just so the cache owner could get their well-earned kicks from my frustration.

 

PS. Some folks feel that a DNF log is a dire thing to use sparingly. They claim that to do so is to be alarmist (as if implying the cache is missing when it's just your lack of geomojo) or somehow insulting to the cache owner.

 

 

Beautifully put and it puts a new spin on it for me thanks. I like the idea of HFY. I think I'll adopt it.

Link to comment

My apologies to the new forum member who started this thread. Look like it was promising for awhile but alas, like so many others, it has gone to the dogs. Must be spring fever. Next full moon isn't until mid April. :ph34r:

 

Thanks for the sympathy but I achieved exactly what I needed. I now have a much deeper understanding of the practices and why different people log in different ways. It got a bit rough but I was being educated as well as entertained.

 

Really my family and I love this sport and you all are helping my understanding...thanks to all who replied.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...