Post DNFs?

[+The Leprechauns]

If I hid an evil disguised micro that stumped five geocachers with a combined find count of around 30,000, I'd sure want to hear about it via DNF logs. It would be an ego boost to my hiding skills. Even if one of the group members was wimseyguy.

[+wimseyguy]

Just be careful what you wish for. I know of a few cachers who would take that comment as a direct double dog dare for their next hide, just so they could receive those DNF posts. There are some people who delight in stumping seekers; it's how they like to play. And ya know what-they would deserve them if we looked and didn't find the cache.

 

One of my favorite geocaching wayback machine memories is when one of those same five cachers asked me for a hint on one of my caches three years ago. I had only been playing for about 8 months, found maybe 2-300, and it was my third hide. Yup, that gave me reason to smile then, and now( cuz it is still there giving seekers fits. )

[+TrailGators]

If I hid an evil disguised micro that stumped five geocachers with a combined find count of around 30,000, I'd sure want to hear about it via DNF logs. It would be an ego boost to my hiding skills. Even if one of the group members was wimseyguy.

I always post a note when I think I've been foiled by a very well hidden cache. We know all know who the evil hiders are out here! However, the most frequent reason that I can't find a cache is because the coordinates are way off. 99% of the time it is because some newbie doesn't know how to take an accurate GPS reading. I'll post a DNF when that happens. It is important to note that many cachers do not like to waste their time looking for a cache that has been DNFed. So many out here use GSAK to filter out any cache with 2-3 consecutive DNFs. I typically skip these caches myself.

[+The Leprechauns]

I will not allow a piece of software to dictate how I log caches. GSAK filters or not, if I looked for the cache but didn't find it, it's a DNF. That is a truthful log. It stands for "Did not find."

 

If the owner doesn't want DNF's cluttering up his page, he can hide a difficulty 1. I like those too, I like them a lot.

[avroair]

So many out here use GSAK to filter out any cache with 2-3 consecutive DNFs. I typically skip these caches myself.

 

They don't even read to see who DNF'ed the cache?

If it was a couple of people who searched together for 2 minutes and have a combined 11 finds... then maybe, just maybe the cache is still there. I went to check on This Cache because I was in the area doing maintenance. It was still there, right were I found it.

[+TrailGators]

So many out here use GSAK to filter out any cache with 2-3 consecutive DNFs. I typically skip these caches myself.

 

They don't even read to see who DNF'ed the cache?

If it was a couple of people who searched together for 2 minutes and have a combined 11 finds... then maybe, just maybe the cache is still there. I went to check on This Cache because I was in the area doing maintenance. It was still there, right were I found it.

 

No they don't. I always check to see who couldn't find the cache. That's why I don't use GSAK to blindly filter out DNFs from my PQs. But if I see two fairly experienced cachers didn't find a cache. I'll typically skip the cache.

 

Like I said before, I use a DNF log as a way of notifying the cache owner that his cache may be missing. It is honest and there is nothing wrong with doing it that way. I'm not sure what the other guy meant above about not using software to dictate how he logs caches. I didn't say that at all......

[+RealWorldAvatars]

Frankly, I couldn't care what other people think of my "stats", since I'm in the game for my own amusement and health, and not for somebody else's anal retentive opinion. So far as I'm concerned, the only stat that matters is that I've lost 12 pounds since I started caching.

 

As for DNFs, I don't feel right logging one unless I've spent a reasonable amount of time looking for the cache; if it's a hide I stopped by for just a couple of minutes on my way somewhere else, just in case it was super-easy to find, I won't log a DNF on it. If I spend 15 minutes or more surreptitiously scouring the area, though, and still come up empty-handed, I'll be the first person to admit it, heh. Usually at great length, and with frequent interjections about my own lameness. Exceptions are when I leave a cache site soon after arriving because it's under construction, surrounded by police, or neck-deep in Japanese tourists (all of these happened in the same week, believe it or not), or if there's something particularly amusing about the situation that I feel will make people giggle at my incompetence; in those cases, I log the DNF anyway.

 

Just my two-cents-worth (or in the case listed above, my two yen worth).

- CindyV (Mrs. RWA)

Edited September 13, 2006 by RealWorldAvatars

[+Ed & Julie]

The only reason to not post DNFs is vanity.

It's a blow to the ego for a lot of cachers to admit they couldn't find the cache.

I log every single DNF (170+)...I have no pride

I have one local cacher all pissy at me because most of my DNFs l atelyseem to be on his bad coordinates-no hint-missrated-micro caches, and thinks it's personal. Most cachers in my area don't post DNFs, so mine stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Ed

[+ke6n]

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

 

Dude... You're putting way too much into it. Just because YOU know why you're there doesn't mean anybody else does. Most people could really care less why you might be there. Just go do it! Don't make multiple trips. Save yourself the gas $$ !

 

Oh, and by the way, to stay on topic. I noted a few caches where I was at today where people post the "finally found it this time" and "fourth time is the charm" and they don't have any previous DNFs posted on the cache. I guess dealing with one's own ego must be terrible for these kinds. I posted a few DNFs today -- proudly!

Ken

Edited September 14, 2006 by n6mhg

[+El Diablo]

My logs through out this game is littered with DNF's. I onlny log them if I've given up on the hunt.

 

El Diablo

[+Bad_CRC]

If I put the effort into it, I'm going to log whether I found it or not.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Bad_CRC

[+wavector]

We need a program that can do the averages over time and compare them across a broad selection of results, well we certainly don't need it.

 

My logs are my experiences, a reflection of what happened, recorded on this website, after the fact.

Anyone using the wesbsite tools to record experiences while geocaching should get results that are pretty similar, statistically speaking we are all somewhere.

A profile with a low number of DNF's is a certain sign that a geocacher may not be using all the tools available.

I have the following stats and I am fairly certain that they are accurate (for my purposes);

 

Total Cache Records 734

Found it 436 59%

Didn't find it 56 12.8% (As a percentage of Finds)

Write note 183 24.9%

 

I try and log all of my geocaching experiences and basically they end in Found it, Write Note or DNF.

Very little mediating logic is required, if I search for a cache and I don't find it, I log a DNF. I tried to find one cache and the roads were so soft and wet that I couldn't get within miles of the cache, I logged a DNF. It is simple and since it really doesn't matter I don't even think it is lame, it is what happened. It might be informative to others it might not, the cache owner might like it or not, I don't try and guess, I just log what happened and others can read about it.

 

Ed & Julie are slightly better at not finding caches than I but a rough comparsion of DNF's as a percentage of Finds shows we are in the same territory 13% to 18%.

I have actually congratulated cachers for logging DNF's on this cache which says outright that cachers need not post a DNF.

I really think the DNF is the most under utilized tool on the geocaching.com website.

[+Mule Ears]

It's like George Carlin's bit on traffic*. If someone DNFs more often than I do, they're incompetent. Less often, they're lying.

 

* Slower drivers in my way are idiots! Faster drivers passing me are maniacs!

[+ClayC]

Dude... You're putting way too much into it. Just because YOU know why you're there doesn't mean anybody else does. Most people could really care less why you might be there. Just go do it! Don't make multiple trips. Save yourself the gas $$ !

 

Yup, your absolutely right. Ive finally figured that out here the last few days! If there are to many people around, I just dont look. Otherwise, I go to find!

[+cimawr]

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.

 

<snip>

 

When I look high and low, to a point where Im completely stuck and still cant find it, THEN I will post a DNF.

 

 

This is similar to what I do, and part of why I don't always log a DNF the first time I check out a cache's location. To me, a DNF is when I make a real effort to locate a cache, with all appropriate information to hand, and truly don't find it.

 

I don't consider it a log-worthy DNF if:

 

1. I cruised by to get a general idea of the cache's location and where to park/start looking without actually stopping, and/or simply gave a cursory look around. This is especially true if I haven't read up on the cache beforehand, and so am not sure what I'm actually looking for.

2. I have to abort or curtail my search because of nearby activity which is temporary.

3. Posting my DNF will involve saying really negative things about a cache's location, especially if I'm not sure I was looking in quite the right place.

4. I happen to be in the area at night, and after scouting or making a cursory search realize that finding the cache without being conspicious requires being there in the daytime; and vice versa.

 

For example: a couple of nights ago I was running an errand at night, and realized that I would be going near four caches that are loaded in my GPSr. I had a bit of extra time, so I scouted the general locations quickly, getting within 100 feet of all - and actually found and logged one.

Of the other three, the first requires parking in the turn-around area of a narrow, residential dead-end street, and searching in the bushes/brush within 150 feet of private property. That one, if I choose to actually look for it, will require coming back in the daytime so as not to draw attention. The second is similar; in the bushes behind a local business, and not in an area where I wanted to be poking around after dark. I didn't even get out of the car for those two, so I'm definitely not going to log a DNF.

 

The third is also behind a local business, and the GPSr pointed me at an area filled with trash and a dumpster. I searched briefly, but the area was filthy - including several broken bottles - and REEKED of urine, and I wasn't sure even of the cache's size. I wasn't about to get down on hands and knees, or feel around, for that one.

On getting home and checking the cache page, it says it's a micro-nano, so I may go back and look again during the day to see if there's something I can spot without endangering my health. I'm not going to log a DNF, because if I did at this point I would include the comments WRT aborting due to filth and smell, which might be unfair to the hider if the cache is up off the ground - which, being a nano, I suspect it is.

 

Now, when I looked twice -really looked - in a 48-hour period and didn't find a cache, THEN I went in and logged a DNF.

 

Also, sometimes I simply don't bother logging a DNF when I intend to return within 2-3 days. If I look a SECOND time and don't find it, then I'll DNF.

[+briansnat]

I don't consider it a log-worthy DNF if:

 

...2. I have to abort or curtail my search because of nearby activity which is temporary.

3. Posting my DNF will involve saying really negative things about a cache's location, especially if I'm not sure I was looking in quite the right place....

 

Don't you think other geocachers deserve to have this information so they can make an informed decision about whether or not to seek a cache? For example if there is construction and the area is temporarily closed off, I would like to know that whether I was the cache owner, or someone interested in searching for it.

 

Also, if there is something negative to be said about the location (as in your example of broken bottles and urine at ground zero) maybe it should be mentioned. If I was thinking about bringing my kid along, I would appreciate having that information beforehand.

[+Mule Ears]

Doesn't the logic of the thread Who's Responsible? apply here? Let me try it on for size: Since The hider is solely reponsible for maintaining his caches, why should I spoonfeed him status information about his cache? I have no legal obligation to do so, or liability in the event that I don't. Sure, it'd be nice and helpful to post a DNF with details about the current condition of the cache site, but that's beside the point. It's the hider's sole responsibility.

[+budd-rdc]

Yes, I post DNFs if I actually spent time searching. I often say WHY I DNF'd (too many muggles, too many hiding spots, likely missing, etc) to inform future visitors and the owner of the hunt. I could be wrong, of course, but that's irrelevant as long as others know I DNF'd in "good faith."

 

I'll still hunt for a cache if previous visitors posted DNFs and if I'm not under time constraints. They influence how I search for it, as I'll likely expand my search farther and look for evidence of disturbance (fallen trees, trimmed bush, water damage, etc.) to try my luck.

[+cimawr]

>>Don't you think other geocachers deserve to have this information so they can make an informed >>decision about whether or not to seek a cache? For example if there is construction and the area is >>temporarily closed off, I would like to know that whether I was the cache owner, or someone interested >>in searching for it.

 

Well... you're using a different definition of "temporary" than I was.

 

To give you three examples of the sort of things I'm talking about:

Two nights ago, I pulled into a isolated parking lot with the GPSr showing me that the hide was 30 feet away. As I was getting ready to get out, a huge pickup truck pulled in right next to me, and the driver started staring over into my smaller van. I put the flashlight down and drove away. I went around the block a couple of times, and on my second pass the truck had left; I pulled back in and found the cache with no problems. However, if the truck had still been there on, on a third pass I'd've left to come back another time.

And on Monday, I went to a park near my S.O.'s house. I located the general hide area, but didn't search because a park employee was mowing a large nearby field, and on every other pass down its length was looking directly at the area that needed to be searched. I left, ran some errands, and came back about 3 hours later; the mowers were gone, and I was able to locate the cache.

Similarly, last Thursday I went looking for a cache that's listed as being at a graveyard about 3 miles from my S.O.'s house. I was wearing shorts and sandals, but when I got closer to the hide site realized that it was in the woods where there were briars and some trash/bottles. I went back to the car to put on jeans and my boots, and as I got there a maintenance man pulled up nearby and began unloading a mower from his truck. I couldn't exactly change my clothes with him right there, plus I didn't want him to see me going into the woods.

So I left and came back on Monday, wearing appropriate clothes, and found the cache.

 

NONE of those conditions would have still been in existence by the time I logged even if I hadn't been able to return and do same-day finds on the first two.

 

>>Also, if there is something negative to be said about the location (as in your example of broken bottles >>and urine at ground zero) maybe it should be mentioned. If I was thinking about bringing my kid along, I >>would appreciate having that information beforehand.

 

It's something of a judgement call, that one.

I agree that others should be aware of nasty conditions, especially since many cache with their kids, and in a couple of other cases have made notes on the line of "I nearly cut myself on a bottle; suggest others exercise caution when searching the ivy".

In this case, I haven't done so *yet* because I'm not sure I was in quite the right place - and I also haven't yet checked to see if anyone else has already logged similar notes. If, on further examination, it appears that GZ is indeed where I was, I'll probably post a DNF along with a note about bad conditions.

Edited September 14, 2006 by cimawr

[+Mudfrog]

Doesn't the logic of the thread Who's Responsible? apply here? Let me try it on for size: Since The hider is solely reponsible for maintaining his caches, why should I spoonfeed him status information about his cache? I have no legal obligation to do so, or liability in the event that I don't. Sure, it'd be nice and helpful to post a DNF with details about the current condition of the cache site, but that's beside the point. It's the hider's sole responsibility.

 

These two scenarios are different from each other.

 

A cache owner hides his cache with certain difficulties built in. Finding the place to park may be one of them so he doesn't list the parking coordinates. This is in the design of his cache.

 

On the same cache, yes its the owner's reponsibility for this cache. He would need to check on the cache every day to see any potential problems that might come about and this is not a reasonable option for most of us. These are problems (difficulties) that the cache hider didn't design into his cache and that he hadn't intended to show up. Even if you don't want to post a DNF, at least post a note with any concerns you may have. This not only helps the owner but certainly helps future finders as well!

[+Mule Ears]

These two scenarios are different from each other.

 

A cache owner hides his cache with certain difficulties built in. Finding the place to park may be one of them so he doesn't list the parking coordinates. This is in the design of his cache.

 

On the same cache, yes its the owner's reponsibility for this cache. He would need to check on the cache every day to see any potential problems that might come about and this is not a reasonable option for most of us. These are problems (difficulties) that the cache hider didn't design into his cache and that he hadn't intended to show up. Even if you don't want to post a DNF, at least post a note with any concerns you may have. This not only helps the owner but certainly helps future finders as well!

 

Quite right. And I do post a DNF when appropriate. I was not trying to make a serious case, just working out my shock at getting such a horse-whipping when I proposed in that other thread that at least providing notice that there are access difficulties would be helpful.

 

Between you and me, rock-climbing is a challenge. A long, strenuous hike is a challenge. Finding a well-camouflaged cache is a challenge. But driving around investigating a buncha dead ends and searching for parking is just an annoyance.

[+Team RSM]

My take on this is that I treat every cache-hunt as an adventure. There is always something interesting to say about it that is worth to preserve for yourself and share with others. This is true if I found the cache or not. I always will log a DNF and then add the cache to my watchlist. If others find the cache afterwards I know it was just my own lack of luck and I will come back.

[+CrossRoadNomads]

We post our DNF's usually if we can't find it after a couple of searches. Not because we are ashamed of not finding it on the first try, but because we may have just had a blonde moment the first time there and we don't want to alert others to think this one can't be found. You know when you see the logs and there are a month or more worth of DNF's, odds are that you're not going to go look for that one, or maybe you do want to go look for that one just to try and prove something to yourself or others.

Also when you post a DNF you alert the owner that this one may be missing when in fact it could be just a total loss of all geosense for that particular hunt.

 

On the other hand, if after a couple times or long first time looking and no find, then.... DNF, especially if it is rated low.

DNFs are helpful for others for the same reasons that are listed above, it's not like they go against you or something, there are several that we would have spent lots of time looking in vain on that could never be found because they were missing ( or likely missing ) and we didn't have to waste our time there because others were courteous enough to post DNFs.

 

We in fact posted a couple DNF's very recently and this alerted the owners, who in turn went to check on thier hides, and they were in fact missing!

 

In our oppinion the only thing that can be bad about a DNF is if someone posts them without consciously considering some of the above thoughts!!!

[+TrailGators]

We post our DNF's usually if we can't find it after a couple of searches. Not because we are ashamed of not finding it on the first try, but because we may have just had a blonde moment the first time there and we don't want to alert others to think this one can't be found. You know when you see the logs and there are a month or more worth of DNF's, odds are that you're not going to go look for that one, or maybe you do want to go look for that one just to try and prove something to yourself or others.

Also when you post a DNF you alert the owner that this one may be missing when in fact it could be just a total loss of all geosense for that particular hunt.

 

On the other hand, if after a couple times or long first time looking and no find, then.... DNF, especially if it is rated low.

DNFs are helpful for others for the same reasons that are listed above, it's not like they go against you or something, there are several that we would have spent lots of time looking in vain on that could never be found because they were missing ( or likely missing ) and we didn't have to waste our time there because others were courteous enough to post DNFs.

 

We in fact posted a couple DNF's very recently and this alerted the owners, who in turn went to check on thier hides, and they were in fact missing!

 

In our oppinion the only thing that can be bad about a DNF is if someone posts them without consciously considering some of the above thoughts!!!

 

I agree!

[Ghengis Jon]

I don't think that a DNF is a that big a deal. I look at my log as a geo-diary. It records my follies, for good and for bad. If I put a legitimate effort into the search and don't find it, I record a DNF. I'm not ashamed of it nor should the cacher owner be proud. It is what it is. I just back from a biz trip to TN. There were 5 caches that were close enough to the highway I was travelling to stop for. Embarrassingly, I could find only 3 and my log reflects that. If and when I return, I can use the DNFs in my log to flag the cache sites I want to return to.

[+Mudfrog]

In our oppinion the only thing that can be bad about a DNF is if someone posts them without consciously considering some of the above thoughts!!!

 

For the most part, this is not going cause any problems. Posting a DNF only means that you Did Not Find the cache. It doesn't mean that the cache isn't there or that you are a lousy finder. The main thing to do when posting your log is to make sure you put some facts into it. Something like, we gave this one a try but only hunted 5 minutes or too many muggles for this attempt will tell it like it is and also not cause the owner of the cache any concern. If you searched well and indicate that you did, then the cache owner can decide if a maintenance visit it required. If you think you found remnants of the cache or if for some reason you are sure it is missing, then post this too. These all give the cache owner an idea of what action he may need to take.

 

Quote:

"We post our DNF's usually if we can't find it after a couple of searches" or "when you post a DNF you alert the owner that this one may be missing when in fact it could be just a total loss of all geosense for that particular hunt".

 

I guess some see these as reasons but to me they are just more excuses. The bottom line is that in these two circumstances the cache wasn't found when the finder went for them. They are both DNFs!

[+ke6n]

Some of the examples I've read where someone gets to a spot but sees there is maintenance going on or they aren't able to begin the hunt because someone pulls up next to them and stares them down (so they leave) could come under the heading: DNL - Did Not Look.

 

If I don't even bother to look, I don't post a DNF because well, I didn't look. I aborted before I began the hunt. Since there isn't a DNL smilie or frown, I'll occasionally post a "Note". I had that opportunity the last time I was out. I pulled up to a parking lot cache (not really impressed with this kind, but it was right near where I was going) and found that it was only me and this other guy sitting in his truck paying too much attention to me. I decided that it wasn't a good time to look and left a "note" on the cache page. The cache hider probably likes to get the feedback on his/her cache and if you're goin to leave feedback without having actually gone looking for it and coming up empty handed, a "note" is nice to leave.

 

-Ken

[+wavector]

I have tried to find one cache twice and I logged a DNF both times. The closest I have ever been to the cache is about 1/2 mile. In the first case I ran into a fenced road allowance and the weather prevented an overland attempt. By the time I ran into the fence I had invested a fair bit of time, albeit in my vehicle, following the arrow. My second DNF occurred when I headed out there to find the cache and I could not get within miles of the cache because of muddy roads, I was sinking about 6 inches in the mud so I turned back.

There really isn't much mediating logic, if I started a serach for the cache and it ended with me not finding it I log a DNF, I try and record my experiences using this website.

If I was passing near a cache and saw that the roads were impassable I might use the "Note" feature to relate that information to others. If I find myself in a parking lot and the cache is nearby then I am already hunting the cache - I am already looking for it - if at that point I am unable to continue, I would log that as DNF.

The order in which things occur matters, if I can't get out of the car so I go have lunch and then come back and find the cache later I would not go home and log a DNF followed by a Find, if I had to come back another day I would go home and log it as a DNF.

 

My DNF log is exactly that, it corresponds to a cache hunt that resulted in not finding the cache that happened between the last time I was here and this time.

 

I know that there are cachers who intend the DNF log to mean something else like "Cache owner needs to check cache" but I hope that cache owners always read my DNF's as "Did Not Find" the cache. I think people who never log DNF's are just not using all the tools available to record the adventures that they have while out geocaching. The OP has made a valid point, a lot of people think seem to think that DNF logs should be avoided, I never suspect that they have missed out on the experience even if they have avoided recording it.

[+wimseyguy]

A tale of four caches: I stopped by a small local park with four new caches in it on the way home from work.

I spotted the first one after searching for about 10 minutes, but due to some recreational activity in the immediate area, I chose to not grab it and sign the log. I was afraid my actions would compromise the hide.-I posted a note

I spent 15 minutes looking for the second one with no luck and went on to the third. I posted a DNF

I found the third one after about five minutes. I posted a find

Since I was walking back past the second one on the way to the fourth I took five more minutes. I didn't post a second DNF; it's still the same search IMO

The fourth one was near a ballfield; I suspect very near the right field fence (the hint was pretty direct.) The outfielders were warming up within 10' of where I planned to search, and once again I didn't want to expose the hide if it was where I assumed it was hidden, so I walked away without getting within 20 yards. I posted another note

 

I live pretty close to this park, so I'll be back soon. Otherwise I might have been a little more aggressive about going after the two I posted notes for. Would you have posted these differently?

[+wavector]

Hi wimseyguy

My logs would be very similar to yours, almost.

 

I spotted the first one

I would log it is a note since I did find the cache, I would log a Found It when I went back and retrieved the cache, my note would indicate that I did not log the cache for fear of compromising the hide.

I spent 15 minutes looking for the second one with no luck

Since I did not find the cache I would log a DNF

I found the third one

I would post a find.

I didn't post a second DNF; it's still the same search IMO

We are going to diverge here. If I concluded a search with a DNF log then it is concluded. If I return to search at another time and I have already posted a DNF I don't consider it the same search, if the second search was not successful then I would log a second DNF.

The fourth one was ... I suspect ... I assumed it was hidden...

In the same scenario I would suspect that I Did Not Find this cache, I assume I would write a DNF log.

[+wimseyguy]

Interesting difference of opinions. The second search for the DNF post was less than 10 minutes after the first, as the only find of the day was .13 away and was a quick find. IMO it was more a continuation of the same search, but after stretching out my legs and eyes for a short break. Had I returned significantly later on in the day, it would deserve a second DNF. In this case it was more a case of "did I really look at the base of all six shrubs, or only the four to the left where there was easier access?

 

The fourth-"eh take the words out of context all you want" I never searched for the cache. My posting a DNF wouldn't provide any valid info to anyone. Not to me-I never searched, just parked nearby, any following cachers?-I never looked for it, the cache owner?-I never looked for it. My decision to walk away from this search before even getting close to it isn't really a part of this cache's history.

True I didn't find it, but there are 1000's of caches that I 'didn't find', because I haven't looked for them yet. You have to look for a cache to either find or not find it. Not just get in the same park.

 

OK gotta run. My wife's at a board meeting until 9PM so I'm going to look for those other three now.

 

Edit: I found all three this evening. FWIW I was more like 120 yards from the fourth not 20 yards. I certainly would have exposed it. It was just outside the outfield fence (the hint was near 273-the right field home run marker I could see from afar the other day) and the outfielders would have certainly paid attention to the man at the edge of the woods 20' away during their warmups. I'll stand by my decision to post a note instead of a DNF. In order to find, one must first seek. I did neither.

Edited September 21, 2006 by wimseyguy

[+Mudfrog]

The fourth-"eh take the words out of context all you want" I never searched for the cache. My posting a DNF wouldn't provide any valid info to anyone. Not to me-I never searched, just parked nearby, any following cachers?-I never looked for it, the cache owner?-I never looked for it. My decision to walk away from this search before even getting close to it isn't really a part of this cache's history.

True I didn't find it, but there are 1000's of caches that I 'didn't find', because I haven't looked for them yet. You have to look for a cache to either find or not find it. Not just get in the same park.

 

It's good that you used common sense and decided to not go for it then, but wouldn't punching goto and driving over with intentions of finding the cache constitute part of the search?

[+Kabuthunk]

My theory is very much like wimseyguy. I have to have actively searched to not find it. If I get to being on the same block as the cache, but something calls me away before I even reach the area, that's not a DNF. More like a did not search .

 

but wouldn't punching goto and driving over with intentions of finding the cache constitute part of the search?

EDIT: Noticed you used the word 'driving over'

Modified line: Going by that theory, if the second I walk out of my apartment, turn on my GPS, and push 'goto' on a cache 50 miles away... but then my car stalls 20 miles from it and I spend the day getting it hauled to a mechanic... that would require a DNF log

 

There'd be a real useful DNF log:

Unable to locate cache. Was stuck in <cityname>, two towns away from cache.

 

Well... that's better than something like "Pushed 'goto' on GPS prior to flight into town. Flight was rerouted due to bad weather. Unable to enter country to retrieve cache today"

Edited September 21, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[+MN-CACHE-TRACKER]

In my hint area of the cache description I list that if a clue is needed to help a cacher find the cache they should post it as a DNF. I wish more would do this..

[+CrossRoadNomads]

In my hint area of the cache description I list that if a clue is needed to help a cacher find the cache they should post it as a DNF. I wish more would do this..

 

What is your thought on the person who happens to be 10hrs or more from home or something like that can't find it and will probably not get back to that area again? Yes, they should post DNF if couldn't find it but the hint would be an after the fact for them. I mean either way no big deal you just have to decide if you want few or most people who search to log a find, right?

 

Or there is the other option I guess if a person knew they were going to search for a cache a long distance away and that is how the hint was listed.... they could just post a DNF even if they haven't looked, just to get the clue ahead of time for a bit of security...(Not that I would do this or that I am saying anyone should)

Edited September 21, 2006 by CrossRoadNomads

[Skippermark]

In my hint area of the cache description I list that if a clue is needed to help a cacher find the cache they should post it as a DNF. I wish more would do this..

A lot of people don't decode hints until they're out in the field and totally stumped. If they are doing it manually and the hint is long, this can take a good amount of time. You might want to add a note to the actual description saying something like, "No hints will be given until you've posted a DNF" and then leave the hint field blank. Forcing people to decode a long hint, only to have them discover it's not a hint will just irritate a lot of cachers.

[+sbell111]

In my hint area of the cache description I list that if a clue is needed to help a cacher find the cache they should post it as a DNF. I wish more would do this..

I'm a paperless cacher, so it's not a big deal, but when I used paper, I would have to manually decode the clue in the field if I got stumped. Your 'hint' would really peave me.

[+Mudfrog]

My theory is very much like wimseyguy. I have to have actively searched to not find it. If I get to being on the same block as the cache, but something calls me away before I even reach the area, that's not a DNF. More like a did not search .

 

but wouldn't punching goto and driving over with intentions of finding the cache constitute part of the search?

EDIT: Noticed you used the word 'driving over'

Modified line: Going by that theory, if the second I walk out of my apartment, turn on my GPS, and push 'goto' on a cache 50 miles away... but then my car stalls 20 miles from it and I spend the day getting it hauled to a mechanic... that would require a DNF log

 

There'd be a real useful DNF log:

Unable to locate cache. Was stuck in <cityname>, two towns away from cache.

 

Well... that's better than something like "Pushed 'goto' on GPS prior to flight into town. Flight was rerouted due to bad weather. Unable to enter country to retrieve cache today"

 

Driving, walking, hiking, bicycling, flying,,, doesn't matter. Im saying that you began your search when you pushed goto and started out for the cache. This is the way i look at it but i can see how others would think differently on this as well. This is one of those gray areas so it's really no big deal either way. I'm being literal as to what DNF means, that i DID NOT FIND the cache. Doesn't matter why i didn't find it, it just states the fact that i didn't!

[+tozainamboku]

 

Driving, walking, hiking, bicycling, flying,,, doesn't matter. Im saying that you began your search when you pushed goto and started out for the cache. This is the way i look at it but i can see how others would think differently on this as well. This is one of those gray areas so it's really no big deal either way. I'm being literal as to what DNF means, that i DID NOT FIND the cache. Doesn't matter why i didn't find it, it just states the fact that i didn't!

 

I think DNF should mean you looked for the cache and did not find it. If it just means you did not find you'd better getting going on logging all those DNF for caches you haven't looked for yet .

 

From this thread it sounds like we have DNF puritans. Like the 'Found It' puritans, they seem to have a very definite idea of what a DNF log is. Puritan cache owners will delete 'Found It' logs if they think the log is bogus. I think I will start deleting DNF logs on my caches if I think that the person didn't really look for my cache. I will delete logs that say "Too many muggles so I didn't look" or "Twisted my ankle getting out of the car so I couldn't hike the 12 miles to the cache". These people didn't look (IMO) so they shouldn't be able to log a DNF.

[+Mudfrog]

 

Driving, walking, hiking, bicycling, flying,,, doesn't matter. Im saying that you began your search when you pushed goto and started out for the cache. This is the way i look at it but i can see how others would think differently on this as well. This is one of those gray areas so it's really no big deal either way. I'm being literal as to what DNF means, that i DID NOT FIND the cache. Doesn't matter why i didn't find it, it just states the fact that i didn't!

 

I think DNF should mean you looked for the cache and did not find it. If it just means you did not find you'd better getting going on logging all those DNF for caches you haven't looked for yet .

 

From this thread it sounds like we have DNF puritans. Like the 'Found It' puritans, they seem to have a very definite idea of what a DNF log is. Puritan cache owners will delete 'Found It' logs if they think the log is bogus. I think I will start deleting DNF logs on my caches if I think that the person didn't really look for my cache. I will delete logs that say "Too many muggles so I didn't look" or "Twisted my ankle getting out of the car so I couldn't hike the 12 miles to the cache". These people didn't look (IMO) so they shouldn't be able to log a DNF.

 

For me, my looking for the cache begins when i push goto and begin my travel towards the cache with the intention of finding that cache. Like i say, we all look at this different and there really is no right way. This is a part of our activity that each of us can play pretty much as we see fit.

 

But like the OP, my question too is, why are cachers so afraid to log DNFs in the first place?

[+budd-rdc]

 

I think DNF should mean you looked for the cache and did not find it. If it just means you did not find you'd better getting going on logging all those DNF for caches you haven't looked for yet .

 

From this thread it sounds like we have DNF puritans. Like the 'Found It' puritans, they seem to have a very definite idea of what a DNF log is. Puritan cache owners will delete 'Found It' logs if they think the log is bogus. I think I will start deleting DNF logs on my caches if I think that the person didn't really look for my cache. I will delete logs that say "Too many muggles so I didn't look" or "Twisted my ankle getting out of the car so I couldn't hike the 12 miles to the cache". These people didn't look (IMO) so they shouldn't be able to log a DNF.

 

For me, my looking for the cache begins when i push goto and begin my travel towards the cache with the intention of finding that cache. Like i say, we all look at this different and there really is no right way. This is a part of our activity that each of us can play pretty much as we see fit.

 

But like the OP, my question too is, why are cachers so afraid to log DNFs in the first place?

I think it's normal for people to be afraid, since "Did NOT Find" implies negativity and underachievement. I was very reluctant to post DNFs when I first started, but after thinking more about the game than about myself, it became easier.

 

My DNFs are dictated by the circumstances more than a fixed set of personal rules. If I got out of the car but got stopped by a freshly posted No Trespassing sign (which actually happened recently), I'd post a note, since I was not able get close enough to visually inspect the hide location. If on the other hand I was all over the hide location searching in detail, I'd post a DNF with a brief reason as to how and why.

 

As an owner, I tend to go verify DNFs rather quickly, so I welcome informative DNFs and Notes to help me maintain my caches. I encourage Puritans to state their "idealogy" in the logs ("I stepped out of my car, but couldn't search due to <xxxx> so I'm logging a DNF.")

[+wimseyguy]

My theory is very much like wimseyguy. I have to have actively searched to not find it. If I get to being on the same block as the cache, but something calls me away before I even reach the area, that's not a DNF. More like a did not search .

 

but wouldn't punching goto and driving over with intentions of finding the cache constitute part of the search?

EDIT: Noticed you used the word 'driving over'

Modified line: Going by that theory, if the second I walk out of my apartment, turn on my GPS, and push 'goto' on a cache 50 miles away... but then my car stalls 20 miles from it and I spend the day getting it hauled to a mechanic... that would require a DNF log

 

There'd be a real useful DNF log:

Unable to locate cache. Was stuck in <cityname>, two towns away from cache.

 

Well... that's better than something like "Pushed 'goto' on GPS prior to flight into town. Flight was rerouted due to bad weather. Unable to enter country to retrieve cache today"

 

Driving, walking, hiking, bicycling, flying,,, doesn't matter. Im saying that you began your search when you pushed goto and started out for the cache. This is the way i look at it but i can see how others would think differently on this as well. This is one of those gray areas so it's really no big deal either way. I'm being literal as to what DNF means, that i DID NOT FIND the cache. Doesn't matter why i didn't find it, it just states the fact that i didn't!

 

The park that hosts the four caches is directly off the main road I drive on to/from work. I drove past them for about two weeks before taking the time to pull in, sometimes with the GPS turned on, sometimes I zoomed all the way in to see exactly which side of the park they were located in. I was within 345' of the one that was closest to the road on many occasions. Should I have posted a DNF then?

[+Mudfrog]

As an owner, I tend to go verify DNFs rather quickly, so I welcome informative DNFs and Notes to help me maintain my caches. I encourage Puritans to state their "idealogy" in the logs ("I stepped out of my car, but couldn't search due to <xxxx> so I'm logging a DNF.")

 

This is the key. Whether you post a note or a DNF isn't as important as giving a bit of information that the owner and future finders can use.

 

The park that hosts the four caches is directly off the main road I drive on to/from work. I drove past them for about two weeks before taking the time to pull in, sometimes with the GPS turned on, sometimes I zoomed all the way in to see exactly which side of the park they were located in. I was within 345' of the one that was closest to the road on many occasions. Should I have posted a DNF then?

 

If you were only scoping out the area with no intention of going for the cache at that time, then i would say no. A DNF should be logged if you are on an active search and didn't find the cache. In my opinion, an active search begins when i punch goto and take off to go find the cache.

[+wavector]

I actually think the lack of mediating logic is an advantage as it simplifies things.

When I write a DNF log it really isnt about "where the cache might be" rather it is "what I was doing".

 

Here is an example : A new cache listing appears and I go out to search for the cache using the coordinates listed, I search the area very very well for the cache but have no success. When I arrive back home and go to relate my adventure I discover that the cache owner listed the wrong coordinates, after I went out to search the listing was updated and someone else has already logged the FTF.

There was no possible way I could have found the cache where I searched because I had the wrong coordinates.

Is that a DNF?

 

You would probably agree that any log would be totally devoid of any useful information, the search would be nowhere near ground zero and logging the fact that a search was conducted at some other location isn't required yet it is however the exact truth, a search occurred and it clearly ended in not finding a cache. I would relate the facts of my adventure and the log type I would select would be the DNF, it isn't about where I searched. It really isn't about where the cache is as the adventure never gets that far, for me this is true for every DNF.

 

I am not sure any log is ever required but I like to think that every log is appreciated. I record my geocaching adventures and rather than a set of rules I use the tools provided by this website, my searches end in Found It, Did Not Find, or Note logs. I have never asked for other types like Did Not Look, Cache Should be Checked, Found the Spot etc... There well may be some value in those log types and maybe they will be added but I think the three we have are enough, so I may well be a puritan.

[+tozainamboku]

I am not sure any log is ever required but I like to think that every log is appreciated. I record my geocaching adventures and rather than a set of rules I use the tools provided by this website, my searches end in Found It, Did Not Find, or Note logs. I have never asked for other types like Did Not Look, Cache Should be Checked, Found the Spot etc... There well may be some value in those log types and maybe they will be added but I think the three we have are enough, so I may well be a puritan.

 

I am certain that no log is ever required. I am sure that not every log is appreciated - I've seen logs get deleted because they gave a evaluation of the cache or cache site that was not appreciated by the cache owner. I do agree in using the tools provided by the website to record my geocaching adventures and that the Found It, Did Not Find, and Note logs are sufficient fo doing this. You are only a puritan if you don't recognize there is also the option of not recording your adventure online if you don't want too (even if your reason is that you don't ever want to admit to a failure to find a cache)

[+markz68]

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 log all of my DNFs and bookmark them for others to see. Since they are bookmarked, I get notified whenever someone else logs something on the cache. That helps to show me if the cache is there so I need to go look again, or if it may really be missing.

 

On my DNF logs, I try to give as much detail as I can as to why I got a DNF. Sometimes it is because of muggles which make me give up the search. Other times, I truly think the cache is gone and I want the owner to check on it, and yet other times, the cache hide just gets the better of me and I can't find it.

 

If I go back and still can't find it, I will log a second DNF on it. On the only one I have gone back to a second time, I got & logged another DNF. The owner went back and confirmed it was still there. Then I emailed the owner and told him I was pretty sure I was in the right area. I told him what the hide probably consisted of in my mind (a specific type of micro container), and where I thought it was (inside the shelter). He confirmed my suspicions so I knew I was on the right track. My wife stopped there the other day and finally scored the find.

 

This same cache owner had another very similar hide that we got a DNF on. After reading our log, he went and checked and confirmed it was missing and could not be replaced, so he deactivated it. Now I know I don't have to go look again for that one.

 

Because of my (and others') DNF logs, 2 of the 28 DNFs I have logged have now been permanently archived because they could not be replaced. That saves others from having to go look for them. And a couple of others have been determined to be missing and have been replaced after I logged DNFs on them.

[Kuan Ti]

I generally don't post DNF's because I don't use a GPS, so I'm more likely to be looking in the wrong area. If I post a DNF, people will assume that I was using a GPS and couldn't find it, and assume that the cache may be harder to find than it actually is, or the owner may see my DNF and needlessly go check on their cache. However, if I'm 100% sure I'm in the right spot I will post a DNF.

[Skippermark]

I generally don't post DNF's because I don't use a GPS, so I'm more likely to be looking in the wrong area. If I post a DNF, people will assume that I was using a GPS and couldn't find it, and assume that the cache may be harder to find than it actually is, or the owner may see my DNF and needlessly go check on their cache. However, if I'm 100% sure I'm in the right spot I will post a DNF.

Ummm, I'm curious how you cache without a GPS, especially if the cache is in the woods.

[+markz68]

I generally don't post DNF's because I don't use a GPS, so I'm more likely to be looking in the wrong area. If I post a DNF, people will assume that I was using a GPS and couldn't find it, and assume that the cache may be harder to find than it actually is, or the owner may see my DNF and needlessly go check on their cache. However, if I'm 100% sure I'm in the right spot I will post a DNF.

Ummm, I'm curious how you cache without a GPS, especially if the cache is in the woods.

 

He's a muggle and watches where others go and then signs the log!

[+budd-rdc]

I generally don't post DNF's because I don't use a GPS, so I'm more likely to be looking in the wrong area. If I post a DNF, people will assume that I was using a GPS and couldn't find it, and assume that the cache may be harder to find than it actually is, or the owner may see my DNF and needlessly go check on their cache. However, if I'm 100% sure I'm in the right spot I will post a DNF.

Ummm, I'm curious how you cache without a GPS, especially if the cache is in the woods.

I've found caches in the woods without coordinates, using hints and past logs before. Luck has a lot to do with it, but I know some people will use unique features nearby (water tanks, meadows, etc.) on a map and then use a compass to get close to the hide location.