Yet another DNF-related etiquette topic

[+Kabuthunk]

Ok, random note... in the FAQ-related topic, there should really be a definitive DNF section. Several of the following questions would probably help to have up-front for a newbie like myself (but I found answers to all but one of them in other random topics):

 

Note: I apologize beforehand if some of the following IS in the FAQ section and I somehow missed it. If that's the case, feel free to hurl rotten vegetables at me. Same goes for if I'm just... wrong on several of 'em.

 

Questions that should be added that I now know the answer for:

1. When should we log a DNF. I think the general consensus I've seen is that 'if you give an attempt to look at all, log it. If you can't because you either think there's too many bystanders around and didn't try, or couldn't find parking, etc, etc, you just ignore it.

2. Do we log a DNF for every repeated attempt. This was one of the main questions I was looking for an answer to (but found). I was at first wondering if we go back and edit our first DNF, or add another. It seems you always add another for every search attempt that ended with not finding it.

3. If we find afterwards, do we change our DNF log to a Find. This one was kinda answered at the exact same time as #2. Well, the answer wasn't explicitly stated, but it's safely assumed that you do not change any previous logs, and just log a new visit, even if it's done on the same day.

4. If I don't find a cache and log it, but then find it later the same day, do I change my old to a find. Again, implied with #2, but not explicitly stated. Safe assumption you log it differently.

 

Which brings me to the final question that I couldn't find an answer for:

 

Say I looked for a cache and logged a DNF. As of right now, my general 'idea' to avoid a million attempts at something is that I'll put that cache on my watchlist, and wait for something to happen. Either for someone else to find it, confirming that it's there (although, given the nature of some people's qualifier as 'found', even that's questionable ), or a note from the cache owner saying something. Basically... wait for something else to happen with the cache.

 

The question is... is it considered good etiquette to email the cache owner to see if they can easily verify whether it's there or not? Not to get hints or whatnot, but just to have someone confirm that it's still present. Or should I wait for say... 2 weeks, and if no other attempts on the cache have been made by THEN, at that point contact the owner?

 

In short... What and when would be the best way to confirm a cache is indeed still in existance if you couldn't find it?

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, might as well ask another etiquette-related question or two here to avoid opening a million topics:

Is it alright if, when logging a find, I don't use acronyms? I REALLY don't like the idea of putting the TLNLSL, TFTC, or whatever other ones were mentioned in the FAQ. I just think using acronyms for the description of what I felt about the log (thus, the acronyms of DNF or FAQ don't really apply, so no jumping on that ). I dunno... just using the tftc type acronyms just seems... cheap to me. Kinda like "eh, another log, whatever... log it as fast as is humanly, physically possible and move on to the next one". Makes it seem like it's almost work to some people. So yeah... it alright to not use said aformentioned acronyms?

 

Secondly... with the use of th word 'muggle'. I... am not really a Harry Potter fan. In fact, the whole series rather annoys me. Think there'd be any problems with me just saying 'bystander' instead? If using something other than 'muggle' is kinda frowned upon, I have no qualms about bowing down and using the term though.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[+GreyingJay]

I would probably wait.. just because I didn't find a cache doesn't mean it's not there (it's probably just me being blind ) but if several people logged DNF's, then that might be time to ask the owner to see if it's there.

 

As for logging DNF's every time I stop to look -- maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't log consecutive DNF's, probably, so as not to scare anyone else off. But if I DNF'd it, and you found it, then I tried again and still couldn't find it, I *might* post a second DNF log.

[+TheBeast]

Secondly... with the use of th word 'muggle'. I... am not really a Harry Potter fan. In fact, the whole series rather annoys me. Think there'd be any problems with me just saying 'bystander' instead? If using something other than 'muggle' is kinda frowned upon, I have no qualms about bowing down and using the term though.

I am not very fond of the that series either, but after hanging out on these forums long enough I have been able to disassociate the term from Harry Potter and it's ok for me now, but, really, you can call them whatever you like!

[+Trucker Lee]

I would probably wait.. just because I didn't find a cache doesn't mean it's not there (it's probably just me being blind ) but if several people logged DNF's, then that might be time to ask the owner to see if it's there.

 

As for logging DNF's every time I stop to look -- maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't log consecutive DNF's, probably, so as not to scare anyone else off. But if I DNF'd it, and you found it, then I tried again and still couldn't find it, I *might* post a second DNF log.

 

Why not just go back to your first log, and post a note. This way, if there are repeated DNFs, the cache owner could see it, and know to check it when possible. If something catastrophic has happened, like bulldozers have cleared the area, then I would suggest relogging with a bold "NEEDS ATTENTION".

 

I have a DNF that bothers me, so I put in on my watch list. This way, I will know the next time someone attempts the cache, and what results they had, or if the owner checks it and logs the upkeep. Still, to be honest, I was probably standing on the silly thing and couldn't see it under my feet. Most likely!

 

If you don't like the acronyms, don't use them. I agree with your thought of "yeah, another one!" And bystanders, non-geo traffic, unwanted eyes are just a few possible replacement terms for muggles. Help yourself.

[+GreyingJay]

Everyone pretty much plays this game however they want to (for better or for worse). So call things whatever you want to call them, and write whatever you want to write

 

Just have fun!

[+palmetto]

I'd like to think I've never used the the term muggle. Non-cachers, bystanders, it's not that hard to avoid.

 

I guess I'm past worrying about DNFs. I post 'em, but mostly I don't think about it much after that. I don't watchlist the cache or put any effort into the question of is it there - if I get back to the area, I hunt it again. If not, not. I don't email owners about verification. As an owner myself, when I've checked my own DNFed caches, they're usually present, so I'm not too keen on doing it.

[+StarBrand]

The only reason for me to go check up on a cache is if I get 5 - 6 DNFs in a row or somebody reports a fairly obvious problem with the general location of the cache. Even then, almost all of the time, I find the cache safe and sound.

[+Ed & Julie]

If I look and don't find it, I log a DNF.

 

If I go back and look and don't find it, I log a DNF.

 

If I keep going back and not find it, I keep logging DNFs after every attempt.

 

When I finally do find it, I log a 'Found It'...all the prior DNFs stand unchanged as a history of the search.

 

Ed

Edited August 18, 2006 by Ed & Julie

[+Team Neos]

Good summary of what to do, for the most part. Of course, people do vary in exactly how they handle things.

 

For instance, I would log a DNF if I went to a cache and there were too many people around to to be stealthy while trying to find the cache. I log anything that will help the next cacher decide if they want to do the cache, and what day or time of day is good for that cache. I've seen lots of caches that mention there may be a lot of people around and have scads of DNFs through the week, and a few logs that say someone found it on a weekend when there was no one around.

 

If I go once and just don't find it--DNF

If I go back and there are too many people --DNF and say there were too many folks around

If I go back and there is construction--DNF and say that

If I go back and it has just rained and I think the cache is under water--DNF

and so forth

If I go back, look a couple of the same places I looked before, get bored and leave, I might not log a DNF, since that really doesn't add any new information for the owner or another cacher. (That hasn't happend yet, so I can't say for sure, though--but it seems silly to just keep posting "looked in the log and the fence but didn't find it" six times).

 

As for the acronyms, I almost never use them. I never use ONLY ancronyms. I tend to write chatty logs, even if I have to resort to telling the story about the jokes we were telling each other on the way to the cache. I just hate to write boring logs.

 

I have written to cache owners if I suspect the cache may actually be missing. I tell them all the places I looked and make some remark like "You must have really hidden that one well because I can't think of anywhere else to look" That gives them enough info that if I looked where it was supposed to be, they can decide if it's worth checking on the cache. On the other hand, if I missed the spot, they usually write to ask me if I want an additional hint.

 

The term "muggle" doesn't bother me one way or the other--I did enjoy the Potter series (and give it full credit for turning my youngest son from an extremely disinterested reader into a voracious reader). Obviously you don't have to use it if it annoys you.

[+briansnat]

is it considered good etiquette to email the cache owner to see if they can easily verify whether it's there or not? Not to get hints or whatnot, but just to have someone confirm that it's still present. Or should I wait for say... 2 weeks, and if no other attempts on the cache have been made by THEN, at that point contact the owner?

 

The owner gets a copy of all the logs, so he knows you had a problem with it. If it is an easy cache that you are fairly sure you were in the right place, you can e-mail the owner and describe where you were searching. If it sounds to him like you were in the right place then he may go out there and check on it. I say may, because not every owner is responsive.

 

Is it alright if, when logging a find, I don't use acronyms? I REALLY don't like the idea of putting the TLNLSL, TFTC, or whatever other ones were mentioned in the FAQ.

 

Of course its fine. If you want to type out the words, that's great.

 

Secondly... with the use of th word 'muggle'. I... am not really a Harry Potter fan. In fact, the whole series rather annoys me. Think there'd be any problems with me just saying 'bystander' instead? If using something other than 'muggle' is kinda frowned upon, I have no qualms about bowing down and using the term though.

 

I'm not fond of the term either. I tried to popularize the word CLAMS (Cache Less And unaware Members of Society, but it didn't catch on. Muggle was already too well

entrenched. If you want to join me on a two person crusade to elimate muggle and replace it with clam, I'm game

 

I try not to use muggle and instead use "non geocachers" and "passersby".

[+Chuy!]

The only time I don't log a DNF is if I'm with a group and someone offers to post a DNF log for all. It keeps the webpage "cleaner". Of course, 9 times out of 10, someone in the group will place a lifeline call to the owner or a previous finder to confirm the cache is MIA, then someone else will produce a replacement container for all to log the find. But, that's another tread topic.

 

Someone mentioned don't worry about abbreviations; to just write what you want and keep it clean, and have fun. I concur.

 

Don't worry about your past logs (e.g. DNFs, notes, etc...); the owner has the power invested in him/her by GC to delete a log entry as the owner sees fit.

[+tozainamboku]

Ok, random note... in the FAQ-related topic, there should really be a definitive DNF section. Several of the following questions would probably help to have up-front for a newbie like myself (but I found answers to all but one of them in other random topics):

 

Note: I apologize beforehand if some of the following IS in the FAQ section and I somehow missed it. If that's the case, feel free to hurl rotten vegetables at me. Same goes for if I'm just... wrong on several of 'em.

 

Questions that should be added that I now know the answer for:

1. When should we log a DNF. I think the general consensus I've seen is that 'if you give an attempt to look at all, log it. If you can't because you either think there's too many bystanders around and didn't try, or couldn't find parking, etc, etc, you just ignore it.

2. Do we log a DNF for every repeated attempt. This was one of the main questions I was looking for an answer to (but found). I was at first wondering if we go back and edit our first DNF, or add another. It seems you always add another for every search attempt that ended with not finding it.

3. If we find afterwards, do we change our DNF log to a Find. This one was kinda answered at the exact same time as #2. Well, the answer wasn't explicitly stated, but it's safely assumed that you do not change any previous logs, and just log a new visit, even if it's done on the same day.

4. If I don't find a cache and log it, but then find it later the same day, do I change my old to a find. Again, implied with #2, but not explicitly stated. Safe assumption you log it differently.

 

There are no rules for logging a DNF. I log all my attempts but I'm not going to post here exactly what I call an attempt. Its not that important. You're old enough to make your own decision about when to log a DNF.

 

Which brings me to the final question that I couldn't find an answer for:

 

Say I looked for a cache and logged a DNF. As of right now, my general 'idea' to avoid a million attempts at something is that I'll put that cache on my watchlist, and wait for something to happen. Either for someone else to find it, confirming that it's there (although, given the nature of some people's qualifier as 'found', even that's questionable ), or a note from the cache owner saying something. Basically... wait for something else to happen with the cache.

 

The question is... is it considered good etiquette to email the cache owner to see if they can easily verify whether it's there or not? Not to get hints or whatnot, but just to have someone confirm that it's still present. Or should I wait for say... 2 weeks, and if no other attempts on the cache have been made by THEN, at that point contact the owner?

 

In short... What and when would be the best way to confirm a cache is indeed still in existance if you couldn't find it?

 

If you think the cache might be missing you can ask the cache owner (or a previous finder) to check if is still there. Putting it on your watch list to see if someone else finds it is also a good way to see if another user finds it or the owner does maintenance. I find that most of the times I DNF its because I didn't see the cache and I find it when I go back a second or third time. I put all my unresolved DNFs in a bookmark list so I get notified if they are found. I've rarely seen someone claim a find for a cache that's not there after I have logged a DNF. I rarely ask the owner to check nor do I ask for hints. Still get plenty of owners who will check on their cache or email me a hint. And occasionally, I get an owner who checks, finds the cache is missing, and emails me that I can claim a find on a cache that is not there. (I only did that once - when the owner changed the cache to a virtual way back when a cache owner had that capablity). There are caches where I have log three or four consecutive finds. Sometimes that will get the owner to check, because other people see the consecutive DNFs and don't realize there all from the same person who just isn't getting it on that one.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, might as well ask another etiquette-related question or two here to avoid opening a million topics:

Is it alright if, when logging a find, I don't use acronyms? I REALLY don't like the idea of putting the TLNLSL, TFTC, or whatever other ones were mentioned in the FAQ. I just think using acronyms for the description of what I felt about the log (thus, the acronyms of DNF or FAQ don't really apply, so no jumping on that ). I dunno... just using the tftc type acronyms just seems... cheap to me. Kinda like "eh, another log, whatever... log it as fast as is humanly, physically possible and move on to the next one". Makes it seem like it's almost work to some people. So yeah... it alright to not use said aformentioned acronyms?

 

If you don't want to use acronyms, its OK IMO.

 

Secondly... with the use of th word 'muggle'. I... am not really a Harry Potter fan. In fact, the whole series rather annoys me. Think there'd be any problems with me just saying 'bystander' instead? If using something other than 'muggle' is kinda frowned upon, I have no qualms about bowing down and using the term though.

 

No one is forcing you to use the term muggle. It is generally accepted and understood in the geocaching community. I don't know if bystander would have as clear of meaning.

 

Edit: As usual, briansnat is right on

Edited August 19, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+badlands]

I'll usually watch list my dnf's. If it's an easy cache, I'll wait until there is activity before trying again. If it's a hard cache, I'll assume that I just missed it and try over and over again.

 

Hard caches are denoted by two things

1) The rating which is often misleading

2) Found It's sprinkled with a bunch of DNFs (usually more accurate)

 

If a cache is missing you will usually see all Found It's and then after a sepcific date all DNF's.

 

This is just another reason to log those DNF's.

[+Civisi]

I went on my first cache hunt yesterday and got five finds. Being a newbie, the guidelines I intend to follow are:

 

A. I will log a DNF if I could have successfully retrieved the cache if I found it.

 

B. I will log separate DNF attempts according to A.

 

C. I will log a NOTE if I am unable to retrieve it because of too many "joes," a term I prefer instead of muggles. I never have been a Harry Potter fan, although I appreciate the the meaning of the word. I derived joes from the term "the average Joe." Children would be called "joeys," useful if you're in a park. I suppose the term "jane" could be used if a woman was nearby, or "janes" if you've stumpled upon a Red Hat Coven meeting.

 

D. I will log a cache as a FIND only if I can hold it in my hands.

 

E. I will log a NOTE if I can see the cache but not access it. The note will explain why I can not access it. For example, a cache that requires grappeling, while visible from an overpass using binoculars, should not be counted as a FIND unless it is retrieved. (See Guideline D.) A NOTE is sufficient to inform other cachers of the cache's presence. This should also apply to caches not accessible because of joes/muggles.

 

F. I will not log multiple FINDs on a single cache.

 

G. I will log NOTES on repeated cache visits if the cache's presence is verified after it has received DNF logs, if contents are checked for condition, or if items are exchanged.

 

H. I will log a cache as "Needs Maintenance" if it needs it.

 

I. I will log a cache as "Needs Archived" only if I have previously verified the cache existed. I cannot log a cache as Needs Archived if I have never seen it before. (See Guidelines D and E.)

 

Some of these guidelines may seem redundant, but to me, it's a good set of rules to follow that cover each circumstance that I might encounter.

 

I do have a question about Guideline H. If I find a cache that I have not logged before and it needs repair, should I log a FIND and then followup with a "Needs Maintenance," or should I log only the "Needs Maintenance?" I'm not interested in a numbers race, but I am interested in numbers accuracy, and I want a FIND to count as a FIND.

 

What do you think? A good start?

 

Civisi from Indiana.

[+larryc43230]

I do have a question about Guideline H. If I find a cache that I have not logged before and it needs repair, should I log a FIND and then followup with a "Needs Maintenance," or should I log only the "Needs Maintenance?" I'm not interested in a numbers race, but I am interested in numbers accuracy, and I want a FIND to count as a FIND.

I've found a few caches that needed maintenance, and I've always made two logs: One "Found It" log and one "Needs Maintenance" log. That gives me the "point" I "earned" for actually finding it, and also notifies the owner that the cache needs maintenance.

 

--Larry

[+Big Max]

Guess I am showing my age. Didn't know muggle came from the Harry Potter books. Oh well, as a buddy of mine says 'Don't make no never mind to me'.

 

As far as DNF's are concerned, my philosophy is it is there to help the cache owner build a history on possible problems with the cache. I would log dnf's each time unless other people were finding it in between, then I would probably just figure I am a blind, ole coot and go actually put some effort into it.

 

I would leave any log I posted there as a matter of history. If I looked in the morning and didn't find it then looked later and found it, I would only post a found it. But, if I posted the DNF after the first attempt I would leave it.

[+Civisi]

Guess I am showing my age. Didn't know muggle came from the Harry Potter books.

 

From http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/Muggle

 

"A muggle is a non-geocacher.

 

The activity of Geocaching is secretive by virtue of the need to keep the caches safe from unwanted attention. This has a direct parallel to the imaginary wizard world of Harry Potter. In Harry Potter non-Magic people, who are unaware of the Magical world all around them are called Muggles. These Muggles generally must not find out about the wizard world and great care it taken to keep is secret. Likewise Geocaching is a world which is best keep secret from non-geocachers. Non-geocachers have therefore been termed Muggles. "

[+Harry Dolphin]

There are no required rules for logging DNFs. Some will argue that every non-successful attempt should be logged as a DNF. That it is all part of the 'history' of the cache. Generally, I will follow that guideline. But not in every case. Evil caches I can admire. But I have no sympathy for nasty caches. Needle in the haystack caches. Third attempt yesterday on a first stage micro in the woods requiring several hundred feet of bushwhacking through mountain laurel to find a micro. This was just nasty. If it weren't on my Ten-Mile List, I would have 'ignored' it after the first attempt. Multiple DNFs just inflate the ego of the hider. Caches with coordinates deliberately a hundred feet off. Yes, we all know that they exist. If it's a honest cache, I will log my DNF, even repeatedly. If it's just nasty, all you get is one DNF, no matter how many attempts it takes me. So sue me.

On your other question, I would never change a DNF to a find. If it's worth logging a DNF, then it is part of the history.

[+Civisi]

If it's a honest cache, I will log my DNF, even repeatedly. If it's just nasty, all you get is one DNF, no matter how many attempts it takes me.

 

I agree whole-heartedly.

[+Trucker Lee]

.................., then someone else will produce a replacement container for all to log the find. But, that's another tread topic.

 

 

Keep thinking I saw a thread on this, don't understand the idea behind it. If you can't find a cache, you just drop another and say you found it?

 

I guess if someone has enough film canisters, and is really anal about the smileys, they don't ever have to admit that someone hid one better than they could find. Did these people cry when they played "hide and seek" too?

 

Man up!! Log the DNF.

[+Trucker Lee]

Duplicate deleted

Edited August 23, 2006 by Trucker Lee

[+Team Dromomania]

Just as there are no rules that one MUST log a find, there are no rules that one must log a DNF. That being said, it is the sharing of experiences of the hunt that makes this activity of geocaches so great, IMOHO.

 

Just go out and have fun and don't try to overthink things.

[+maureensk]

Multiple DNFs just inflate the ego of the hider. Caches with coordinates deliberately a hundred feet off. Yes, we all know that they exist. If it's a honest cache, I will log my DNF, even repeatedly. If it's just nasty, all you get is one DNF, no matter how many attempts it takes me. So sue me.

 

 

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to quote this previous post correctly.

 

Wow! People really do that! Why would someone like people to DNF on their cache? Sorry to seem stupid, I am still fairly new at this. There is this one cacher near us says that multiple DNF's means it is a good hide, he calls his hides evil and I must say I have enough trouble with "well behaved" cahes without trying for evil ones.

 

I have kind of wonered about some of the people who call themselves evil and have hardly any finds, but lots of hides. I wonder if they really understand what it feels like to DNF... Maybe they have more finds actually, but use a sock puppet account (I'm still not sure what that is)?

Edited August 23, 2006 by maureensk

[+GreyingJay]

Wow! People really do that! Why would someone like people to DNF on their cache? Sorry to seem stupid, I am still fairly new at this. There is this one cacher near us says that multiple DNF's means it is a good hide, he calls his hides evil and I must say I have enough trouble with "well behaved" cahes without trying for evil ones.

 

I have kind of wonered about some of the people who call themselves evil and have hardly any finds, but lots of hides. I wonder if they really understand what it feels like to DNF... Maybe they have more finds actually, but use a sock puppet account (I'm still not sure what that is)?

 

Well, some people are renowned for their evil hides, and some people like that. We have a lot of people in Ottawa with 300, 600, 800, 1500+ hides. If you think about it, that's an awful lot of ammo boxes under unnatural-piles-of-sticks and an awful lot of micros hidden in lampposts. These people want challenges, and they can get them.

 

Yes, one of our local hiders will mess with you by making his coordinates perfect for a number of his waypoints but be deliberately off for the last one. Again, keeps you on your toes. I don't know if I'd appreciate it (never tried one of his caches yet, I'm still dealing with the easier ones ) but we shall see.

 

As for a sock puppet account, that's when you register a second account with the sole purpose of using it to support an agenda of your main account. In your example, it could be that they have one account under which they make their finds, which is a different account from where they make their hides. I'm not sure why anyone would do this, and I don't think it's allowed, but you never know...

[laomaktk]

I am also a newbie and now have 3 finds. The first 2 finds took 2 days each but I didn't log them as DNF, I just logged the find when it happened. On our first attempt we didn't really know how to use the gps and gave up, on our second find we got caught in the rain just as we were getting close. I didn't bother logging the DNF for either because it wasn't the fault of the cache, only our foolishness. Should I have logged them?

[+GreyingJay]

Welcome to the game, laomaktk! I hope it brings you years of enjoyment

 

I think (as with any of these other anecdotes) you could have logged the DNF if you wanted to, but there is argument, as you have given, for not logging them since the reason you didn't find anything was because you didn't know how, and because your second search was cut off by the rains.

 

It works either way. A DNF is good documentation of your experience, and being out there and not knowing how to work a GPS counts as experience (and memories to look back on). By being caught in the rain, you did not get a chance to really search, either. In each casse you didn't get a chance to actually search for the cache, so you can't really say you didn't find it.

 

I would not have posted a DNF because of aborted searches due to weather, but I would (and did) post the DNF on my first caching experience. I, too, didn't know what I was looking for