Jump to content

Post DNFs?


Stan&Ruth
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

It seems that a lot of Geocache hunters do not post a "didn't find It" on the cache web page. It is very helpful to the cache owner to have DNFs posted so they can go and check to see if it is still there.

 

Agreed, unfortunatly as much as you are told this is not competitive nor about numbers, in reality for the majority of active cachers, it is about those things to one dgree or another. Some few it as a negative and don't do it.

 

As a result many, including myslef, often will not give help or assistance on a cache unless a DNF is posted.

Link to comment

I will post a DNF the first time I try to find a cache and fail. I will not post again for that cache unless I find it on a return trip or if I have additional unsuccessful searching experiences to report.

 

Too many people seem to think posting a DNF is shameful. If a cache is missing, how else will the hider know to go and check it?

 

Bill

Link to comment

here's my deal. i will log a dnf if i believe that i know where it should be and it is not there. most of the time i get a dnf is because i just don't have the time (for reasons) to spend looking for it. so why log a dnf saying "i didn't find it but i'll be back." if in fact i do have a lot of time to spend looking and do not find it, i will log a dnf.

 

for example.

i look for a cache that has a difficulty level of 1 and i spend 20 minutes looking, then i will log a dnf. chances are it is missing or moved to some where maybe by muggles or cachers who did not replace it properly.

 

i look for a cache that has a difficulty level of 3-4 and i spend 20 minutes looking, then i will not log a dnf becuase it is probably there and i just can not find it. especially if logs from within a week say they found it. or there are a combo of finds and no finds, then it must be hard. but i spend an hour looking and do not find it, then i would log a dnf so that others know it is hard to find and also ask for a hint when i log my dnf.

 

as GeeO$$$ says "I will post a DNF the first time I try to find a cache and fail. I will not post again for that cache unless I find it on a return trip or if I have additional unsuccessful searching experiences to report.

"

i just don't see any reason to log all dnfs. with out a doubt with my reason above is why i would or would not log a dnf. but that is just me and my reasons. i don't expect any one else to feel the same. :(

Edited by JDubPooch
Link to comment

Heck, I DNF'd a cache a couple of times - even though I looked for it even more! It was a micro in a place that required getting down on the ground. Every time I went to look for it it was raining or foggy or some soggy reason. I finally found it (after a kind emailed tip from the owner) but that one was a real killer!

Link to comment

I log all my DNF's, provided I actually tried looking for any length of time. I added the last half of that mainly because of one cache I technically didn't log a DNF, but as I was driving by to find a parking spot, I realized that there was some kind of event or something happening, so there was thousands of people crowded into the area.

 

I just kept driving and didn't even slow down... hence the not logging a DNF, since I didn't even attempt it :(

 

But yes... if I actually follow the GPS to the coordinates and look around at all, I'll post a DNF if I didn't find. I like to keep an accurate history of my find/dnf rate and whatnot. Also, it should make for interesting reading back later on.

Link to comment

Because we know that, secretly, everyone laughs at us whenever we post a DNF.

I don't laugh secretly when someone posts a DNF ... I do it to their face! :( Especially if it's one that I found quickly. :huh: Of course that usually means that my next 3 hunts will end in DNF's. :o

 

Oh, and yes, I log the DNF's too.

Link to comment

I log a DNF everytime i start a search and come up empty. Doesn't matter if the cache is missing or not, or that i didn't look very long, or it started raining, or i ran out of gas on the way to the cache, or i got a tummy ache, etc,,,,, If i didn't find it then what else could it be. Afterall, DNF does stand for DID NOT FIND! :(

 

It beats me, i'm not sure why some people are so afraid to log em!

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

How do you know that people aren't logging their DNFs? I suppose you check the logbook and see that their names aren't there?

 

In my case, its because I will see the cacher in person, and they will say that they have looked 5 times for such and such cache, where is it? Then I go check on the log and there is nothing.

Link to comment

We always log our DNFs! We even count our DNF milestones in our profile! We're almost at DNF #100 :laughing::laughing:

 

FINALLY! Somthing for me to keep track of! I LIKE that! While its fun being FTF......I hardly see why keeping track of them is a big deal. I have some. No idea how many. who cares?

THIS is funny! I DEFINATLY have more DNF then most anything else.

Link to comment

I suspect that it is because unlike these, icon_smile.gif,you don't get any points for one of these, icon_sad.gif. If you got a point for each of your DNF logs then I suspect you would find more geocachers not finding caches.

 

you get points for :laughing: these? wow! what can you do with them? redeem them for fabulous prizes?

Link to comment

How do you know that people aren't logging their DNFs? I suppose you check the logbook and see that their names aren't there?

 

Well I do see a lot of logs that say something like "Found it on my third attempt" with no previous DNFs.

 

I will also see people go through an area and hit most of the caches, missing one or two and I wonder why they would have passed up a cache just a short distance from one they found.

 

For example, not long ago I placed a short multi and a traditional cache .1 mile away on the same street. I've had several people log the multi, but not the nearby traditional (which is a unique for this area hide). In these cases I think its reasonable to suspect that the people who found the multi attempted the traditional but couldn't find it and didn't log the DNF.

Link to comment

well, so far Im pretty new to this, and I go to about every cache twice. 1st time I go to scout the area. I look around, try to figure out where Im going to, exactly where Im going to. Typically I will glance around a bit to see if I can score a quick find, but if I cant thats ok. I then usually go back either later in the day, or a day or two later, to actually give a good going over the area.

 

In trying not to draw to much attention (especially in high muggle areas), I find this makes it easier to get in and out with out hanging around for a long time. I dont personally consider this a DNF, maybe it is to some. When I look high and low, to a point where Im completely stuck and still cant find it, THEN I will post a DNF.

 

clay

Edited by ClayC
Link to comment

How do you know that people aren't logging their DNFs? I suppose you check the logbook and see that their names aren't there?

 

Well I do see a lot of logs that say something like "Found it on my third attempt" with no previous DNFs.

 

I will also see people go through an area and hit most of the caches, missing one or two and I wonder why they would have passed up a cache just a short distance from one they found.

 

For example, not long ago I placed a short multi and a traditional cache .1 mile away on the same street. I've had several people log the multi, but not the nearby traditional (which is a unique for this area hide). In these cases I think its reasonable to suspect that the people who found the multi attempted the traditional but couldn't find it and didn't log the DNF.

 

We have a relatively low proportion of DNFs, primarily because we concentrate on puzzles and long hikes, and eschew high-difficulty micros in public places. But occasionally we'll do a spree of 'normal' caches along a route, leaving odd gaps between finds. What accounts for the gaps is this scenario:

 

We roll up on the location. If we discover it to be a dumpster or lamppost, or an area infested with muggles, or to require scorched-earth searching, we roll away again. This may or may not include parking the vehicle. Does that merit a DNF log? Should we offend the owner by saying, "DNF. Didn't like the looks of the place, so we left without a search?" A lot of the caches we reject would be fun for somebody with different interests, but we can tell pretty quickly whether or not we're interested.

 

And someone who doesn't record such an incident online isn't lying to himself, or to anyone for that matter. It's perfectly reasonable to have a minimum threshold for writing a log. I don't get the moral-purity angle on this issue.

Link to comment

How do you know that people aren't logging their DNFs? I suppose you check the logbook and see that their names aren't there?

 

Well I do see a lot of logs that say something like "Found it on my third attempt" with no previous DNFs.

 

I will also see people go through an area and hit most of the caches, missing one or two and I wonder why they would have passed up a cache just a short distance from one they found.

 

For example, not long ago I placed a short multi and a traditional cache .1 mile away on the same street. I've had several people log the multi, but not the nearby traditional (which is a unique for this area hide). In these cases I think its reasonable to suspect that the people who found the multi attempted the traditional but couldn't find it and didn't log the DNF.

 

What accounts for the gaps is this scenario:

 

We roll up on the location. If we discover it to be a dumpster or lamppost, or an area infested with muggles, or to require scorched-earth searching, we roll away again. This may or may not include parking the vehicle. Does that merit a DNF log? Should we offend the owner by saying, "DNF. Didn't like the looks of the place, so we left without a search?" A lot of the caches we reject would be fun for somebody with different interests, but we can tell pretty quickly whether or not we're interested.

 

 

I understand passing up junk caches while out for a day of cache hunting, but I've seen it happen when the caches skipped are not significantly better or worse (or more or less difficult) than the others.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

well, so far Im pretty new to this, and I go to about every cache twice. 1st time I go to scout the area. I look around, try to figure out where Im going to, exactly where Im going to.

[...]

I dont personally consider this a DNF, maybe it is to some. When I look high and low, to a point where Im completely stuck and still cant find it, THEN I will post a DNF.

 

Despite my earlier joking answer, I do log my DNFs. Logging a DNF doesn't bother me. The actual fact of not finding the cache, well, that does bother me, but that just means that I'm going to come back and try again. Oh yes, it will be mine!

 

I agree with you that your 'scouting' approach doesn't call for a DNF. Some people plan their approach with online research, and what you're doing isn't any different, except that you're giving the place a once-over in person.

 

For traditional caches, I don't do any scouting. I show up, I hunt, and if I fail I log it and return another day. For puzzle caches, I won't log a DNF until I've given up. I'm working on two right now that are still in the "sit at home and ponder" phase, though I've done quick drive-throughs of the area. I'll either figure them out, or at some point admit defeat and log the DNF.

Link to comment

I understand passing up a junk caches while out for a day of cache hunting, but what about when they are not junk caches? Those aren't the kinds of caches I'm referring to where I've seen this happen.

 

Some of the caches I pass by wouldn't be considered junk by others, but that's a side issue. I get your point.

 

I'm sure it happens that sometimes cachers do search for a cache, fail to find it, and for whatever reason decide not to post a DNF. The reasons supplied here for that decision have been negative--they're 'lying to themselves,' or they're 'afraid' to log a no-find. But the OP mentioned that DNFs are handy for the owner to keep tabs on the cache's condition. What if a no-finder is not a great searcher and wants to avoid alarming the cache owner? That's a positive motive (even if misguided). Some non-logging no-finders may just be eternal optimists; "Didn't find it today, but I ain't licked yet!"

 

I'm sure a lot of cachers don't log DNFs at all. [-Gasps of shock and horror-] Maybe some of them are evil, lazy, selfish SOBs. But I doubt the proportion is any higher than that of the dutiful DNFers.

Link to comment

Stan&Ruth, I am guessing that you know about the DNFs because (especially on your evil "Not for Beginners" series) many people make comments like, "It took me 4 visits to the site," in their "found it" logs, but haven't logged any DNFs.

 

Personally, I don't get the idea behind not logging DNFs. I log all mine except for the aforementioned "not liking the area" scenario. And since you are so dilligent about maintaining your caches, I can understand why you want to see those DNFs logged. You have a fair collection of DNF logs on your caches because they are good hides, so it's particularly silly to me that people would be... what I can only assume is embarassed about logging one. Or three.

 

I guess I liken it using your turn signal. Some people just can't be bothered to use it even when it's easy, helpful, and courteous to others. When one uses the DNF log they are letting the cache placer know that someone has looked for it (I always like to know when someone is interested enough to search out my caches) and that it is possibly missing. They also let other cache seekers know that someone has looked for it and, because they couldn't find it, the other cache seekers can infer that the hide may be difficult or missing. Or just that the last person just plain couldn't find it.

Link to comment

It seems that a lot of Geocache hunters do not post a "didn't find It" on the cache web page. It is very helpful to the cache owner to have DNFs posted so they can go and check to see if it is still there.

Yes, as I have stated many times before in many similar threads, I do not "get" why people will not file DNFs. Myself, I file DNFs just as meticulously and religiously and with as much care, as I spend on find logs, and my DNF logs are often lengthy and funny!

Link to comment

I suspect that it is because unlike these, icon_smile.gif,you don't get any points for one of these, icon_sad.gif. If you got a point for each of your DNF logs then I suspect you would find more geocachers not finding caches.

 

you get points for :laughing: these? wow! what can you do with them? redeem them for fabulous prizes?

 

I don't know but some geocachers do stuff like make multiple find logs on caches and log finds on archived caches that never really found just to aquire more of these points. Logically, if some geocachers do things like this to increase their points then makeing a DNF log entry worth a point will encourage the same geocachers to make more DNF logs.

 

OT: Some geocachers feel that their number of finds is some kind of status symbol and to a point they are correct. But there are plenty of other threads about that, this thread is about DNF logs.

Link to comment

It seems that a lot of Geocache hunters do not post a "didn't find It" on the cache web page. It is very helpful to the cache owner to have DNFs posted so they can go and check to see if it is still there.

Yes, as I have stated many times before in many similar threads, I do not "get" why people will not file DNFs. Myself, I file DNFs just as meticulously and religiously and with as much care, as I spend on find logs, and my DNF logs are often lengthy and funny!

 

We've posted some DNFs that were actually better than our typical found logs. In one case, we searched a fire-ravaged mountaintop for an hour or more, DNFed, and decided to salvage the day by photographing the amazing mushrooms we found on the return trip. It's one of my favorite logs. I returned a year later and found that cache--the log is short and forgettable. So I get it.

 

What I don't think some of the posters to this thread get is that discussions like this one are counterproductive if your goal is to get more people to post DNFs. Think about it: You're revealing the extent to which you watch other cachers' logs, and you're expressing disapproval of their actions and your interpretation of their motives. Under such scrutiny you're expecting people to be more forthcoming? That's not human nature. And what about potential pro-DNF allies, like us? We do post DNFs when appropriate, but our standard for what's appropriate leaves those suspicious gaps in our caching activities (that we now know are being monitored so closely). We can't be expected to be happy about being tarred with the same brush.

Link to comment

I will go out of my way to give up a clue to anyone who posts a DNF on one of mine if they ask.

If they post multiple DNFs I may even contact them on my own just for being persistent.

I may also post an extra clue on the cache page for those who are serious enough to put it on their watch list.

Then after they get the email I delete it from the page.

So sometimes posting a DNF isn’t that bad

Link to comment

As a cacher who hides and maintains a reasonable number of caches, I really appreciate people who log a DNF. Especially in my more remote location, it really helps me keep track of how all the caches are going. A couple of DNF's will prompt me to go and check the cache, perhaps preventing other cachers from missing out also. In fact, depending on the experience of the cacher and the difficulty of the cache, I will often e-mail the person who logs a DNF and say, "thanks, the cache was missing, but is now replaced", or "thanks, the cache was there, would you like a hint for next time?" It helps if the DNF log gives a little detail about where, and how hard, the cacher looked.

By the way, as a cacher limited geographically to cache numbers i spend as much time checking up on people as I do out caching. ( I also get a lot of pleasure from both the Australian and American forums) Perhaps because of the differences in our societies, it never occured to me that any one could get upset at me "monitoring" their activities. After all the whole site is designed to do this, and also allows you to give as little, or as much, information about yourself as you like) Your forums even have one facility which was removed from the Australian one ( for site design reasons) which i really appreciate. You can click on any member and find all the available information at your fingertips. This is really useful for a lot of reasons, not the least just checking the experience of a contributor when they are giving advice or making a comment on the forum.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment

DNF's ARE evil! Everytime we log a DNF we are making a statement: we have failed as cachers and we should have just stayed home and all put on cute little sun dresses and have a fregg'n tea party (that would be a sight). It doesn't matter if its there or not! I don't care. When people post DNF's on our caches it means we got the best of them. AH HAAAA! It's not at all like we are competing with anyone... its just fun for us to cache with this attitude so we only post DNF is we think it is not there.

Link to comment

As a cacher who hides and maintains a reasonable number of caches, I really appreciate people who log a DNF. Especially in my more remote location, it really helps me keep track of how all the caches are going. A couple of DNF's will prompt me to go and check the cache, perhaps preventing other cachers from missing out also. In fact, depending on the experience of the cacher and the difficulty of the cache, I will often e-mail the person who logs a DNF and say, "thanks, the cache was missing, but is now replaced", or "thanks, the cache was there, would you like a hint for next time?" It helps if the DNF log gives a little detail about where, and how hard, the cacher looked.

By the way, as a cacher limited geographically to cache numbers i spend as much time checking up on people as I do out caching. ( I also get a lot of pleasure from both the Australian and American forums) Perhaps because of the differences in our societies, it never occured to me that any one could get upset at me "monitoring" their activities. After all the whole site is designed to do this, and also allows you to give as little, or as much, information about yourself as you like) Your forums even have one facility which was removed from the Australian one ( for site design reasons) which i really appreciate. You can click on any member and find all the available information at your fingertips. This is really useful for a lot of reasons, not the least just checking the experience of a contributor when they are giving advice or making a comment on the forum.

 

No question that DNFs provide useful info to the cache owner. The central question of this thread is (or should be) how to encourage more cachers to post DNFs. My point is that the attitudes revealed in this thread are not going to improve the situation.

 

Thought experiment, borrowed from the it's-not-about-the-numbers discussions: What if there were no DNF log type? If you visit the cache location and don't meet the criteria for a smilie, how about posting a note? Would that satisfy the requirement? By my reckoning it would, and it might encourage more 'status reports' from non-finders who just don't like to post DNFs. Who cares why they don't like it--they just don't. (Might be the ugly little blue face, for all I know.)

 

RE 'Monitoring:' Context matters a lot here. I think most cachers are flattered that others read their logs and note their accomplishments. On the other hand, they'd be unhappy to think that some folks are analyzing their logs for signs that they're failing to post DNFs (or for other moral failings). It's the difference between having a neighbor who notices your new rose bushes, and having one who counts the liquor bottles in your trash.

Link to comment

Since I am a newbie, I mentally put my DNFs into two categories. If the cache was recently found and I don't locate it, I attribute this to my inexperience. I will look one more time before logging a DNF. If the cache has not be found in several months, then I do log a DNF to alert others. If someone else finds it, then I go try again. If there is no notification on the log page that either the owner or another cacher has not located it, I don't try after twice. I still get stumped very easily! And really excited when I find one!

 

Sandy

Link to comment

Since I am a newbie, I mentally put my DNFs into two categories. If the cache was recently found and I don't locate it, I attribute this to my inexperience. I will look one more time before logging a DNF. If the cache has not be found in several months, then I do log a DNF to alert others. If someone else finds it, then I go try again. If there is no notification on the log page that either the owner or another cacher has not located it, I don't try after twice. I still get stumped very easily! And really excited when I find one!

 

Sandy

 

Sounds good to me. A completely sensible approach.

Link to comment

I post mine and even bookmark them for all to see.

 

I usually remove them from my bookmark list once I go back and find them or they become archived, but the DNF log is still on the cache page.

 

I really like the idea put forth by Buckeyes. Although I log most of my DNFs, I sometimes loose track of them when a month has passed before I can get back to them. Adding them to a bookmark would definitely solve that issue. ;)

Link to comment

"Why don't cachers post DNF's?"

 

Simple-they are scared that someone will make fun of them for not finding the cache. B)

 

If I was worried about people making fun of me for not finding a cache, then I have a lot more to worry about in this life as well. B) I have started posting notes to acknowledge a particular hiding style that allows me to find and see the cache, but I am unable to sign the log so I cannot post a find.....yet. ;)

 

PS 303 DNF's and counting, and I haven't even posted the one from last night yet. :)

Link to comment

"Why don't cachers post DNF's?"

 

Simple-they are scared that someone will make fun of them for not finding the cache. B)

 

If I was worried about people making fun of me for not finding a cache, then I have a lot more to worry about in this life as well. B) I have started posting notes to acknowledge a particular hiding style that allows me to find and see the cache, but I am unable to sign the log so I cannot post a find.....yet. ;)

 

PS 303 DNF's and counting, and I haven't even posted the one from last night yet. :)

wimseyguy is a DNF magnet.

 

On September 2, four geocachers pile into a car for a roadtrip. They have more than 24,000 finds among them, and they find 50 caches, with just two DNF's on caches later confirmed to be missing.

 

On September 3, the group is joined by wimseyguy. They find 25 caches and DNF 11. Many of the caches are later confirmed to be snug in their hiding places. You be the judge.

 

Follow the link below to see my DNF bookmark list. I'm at 161 DNF's and counting. They are great stories, like my Labor Day weekend trip. We had a blast, and wimseyguy was a most gracious tour guide.

Link to comment

Is the purpose of a DNF to let everyone know that you've lost your mojo or is the purpose to let the owner know that his cache is probably missing? I believe the purpose of a DNF is to let the owner know that his cache is probably missing. So I log DNFs using that logic.

I think it's funny that there are two such completely opposite sub-camps within the "Yes, I sometimes log DNFs" camp: one group will only log a DNF if they are sure the cache is missing, and will log a note (or nothing) if they thingk it might be there but they just couldn't find it; the other group will only log a DNF if they think that the cache is still there but they couldn't find it, and will log a note or a "Found it" (!!) if the cache was actually missing. Each group is sure that their reasoning makes perfect sense, and I'm sure it does to them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their way of thinking; I just find it funny.

 

(To me the purpose of a DNF is too say "I looked for it, but I didn't find it." What other people want to get out of my DNF is completely up to them: I'm not trying to imply that it's missing (it might be, but it probably isn't); I'm not trying to imply that the coordinates are bad, or that it's a devious hide, or that the cache is improperly rated, or that I am having a bad cache-finding day -- if I believe those things are true in certain cases, I say so in the log; the DNF alone is never meant to imply any of them.)

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...