Jump to content

DNF milestone dilemma


Recommended Posts

We are fast approaching the 100-DNF mark.

 

But before we order the sheet-cake and the helium balloons and the 100-DNF Commemorative Geocoin (there is such a coin, right?), we have to decide exactly what is the proper way to count our DNFs.

 

We have logged DNFs on 84 individual caches. But some of them have multiple DNFs, so we have submitted a total of 96 DNF logs. My first inclination is to use the number of distinct caches, so the count would currently stand at 84. But we wouldn't want it to be said that we were ashamed of the other 12 DNFs and were sweeping them under the rug, so maybe we should count them after all... On the other hand, if we claim 96 DNFs, it could be said that we were artificially padding our DNF numbers, just because we're impatient to have some cake, or trying to join the Leprechauns and Team Perks in the prestigious 100-Plus-DNF Club.

 

We're losing sleep over this! Opinions, anyone?

 

Because, after all, not only is it all about the numbers, it's also all about what everyone else thinks of your numbers. :unsure:

Link to comment

I count each DNF separately. It's taken four or five tries for me to find a couple of caches. Each effort was its own exercise in stupidity, mistaken assumptions and bad luck. I value them all equally.

 

Think of it this way: you can only "find" a cache once. There are unlimited opportunities to DNF a cache.

 

I wish you every success in your effort to join the prestigious 100 DNF's club. I would hide a commemorative cache to mark the occasion, but you probably wouldn't be able to find it. :unsure:

Link to comment

I believe it's also cheating to still call any cache that you DNF'd at one time, and later found, as still a DNF. I know: they are still on the DNF list on your profile account. But after all, you DID find them.

 

So, given that: now what's your count look like? :ph34r:

 

Actually, it gets even messier than that: one of the DNFs is on a cache that I own. :unsure:

Link to comment

I believe it's also cheating to still call any cache that you DNF'd at one time, and later found, as still a DNF. I know: they are still on the DNF list on your profile account. But after all, you DID find them.

 

So, given that: now what's your count look like? :unsure:

I disclose *that* information on my bookmark list (see link in my sig line). While I have 160 total DNF *logs*, the number of *caches* with *unresolved* DNF's now stands at 47. The difference between 47 and 160 is explained by a mixture of multiple DNF's on the same cache, caches later being archived because they weren't there, and my superior skills and determination in hunting down caches on return visits. Well, *mainly* the first two things.

 

This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, the *asterisk.*

Link to comment

I submit that any DNF you logged since September 6, 2006 doesn't count as a legitimate DNF. I mean, how hard is it to DNF when you've lost your GPSr?

 

Sheesh. What ever happened to integrity?

 

This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, italics.

Perhaps you DNF'd Post #11 in that thread, in which I mentioned that I was reverting back to my old GPS?

 

All 13 our our DNFs since then have been legit! *sniff* Well, except maybe one of them, since it was a repeat DNF. And maybe except the four that we subsequently found.

Link to comment

But don't your finds on your previous DNF's completely invalidate the DNF's? One could simply DNF on the day of the hunt, then post the find the same or even the next day. I'm sure CCCA has thousands of DNF's that were subsequently found, because I heard she's such a cheater.

 

This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment

OK, I have to take back what I just posted because I just checked my list: 104! Holy crap! I suck at this game! But 32 of those I have since found, but only a 3 or so were duplicate DNFs on the same caches. So, it's necessary to adjust my attitude so I can claim my century club coin. So, where's my coin? :unsure:

 

Yep, I've always been a strong proponent of changing the rules (even if they are my own rules) to reach a goal. I had no idea I was on the cusp of attainment.

 

Hey, I already told you I suck at this. :ph34r:

Link to comment

OK, I have to take back what I just posted because I just checked my list: 104! Holy crap! I suck at this game! But 32 of those I have since found, but only a 3 or so were duplicate DNFs on the same caches. So, it's necessary to adjust my attitude so I can claim my century club coin. So, where's my coin? :unsure:

 

I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the coin says on it: "Holy crap! I suck at this game!"

 

I can't wait to get mine! I hope they have matching pins too.

Link to comment

Well you could obviously DNF a cache more than once.

 

But what if you find the cache during your next visit? Does that DNF still count towards your numbers? Once you find the cache, have you still not found it? Is it possible to not find a cache, then find it, then still say you didn't find it? If you think so, can you live with yourself, or will the guilt slowly drive you mad?

 

I think you need to ask yourself what's more important to you...your DNF count or your integrity. After all, the DNF frownie is just an upside down smilie.

 

If you can pad your DNF count, and still sleep at night, more power to you.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

I believe it's also cheating to still call any cache that you DNF'd at one time, and later found, as still a DNF. I know: they are still on the DNF list on your profile account. But after all, you DID find them.

 

The more I mull it over, the more this idea is causing me even greater inner turmoil, since I am now wondering how to count things when they happen in the reverse order:

 

-- I find a cache and claim a smiley.

-- I later return to drop a TB, and cannot find the cache! It isn't where I had found it before. I log a DNF.

-- The owner checks on it and finds that it was hidden in a different spot, and puts it back.

 

If it's cheating to call an initial DNF a "real" DNF if I later find it, is it also cheating to call an initial find a "real" find if I later can't find it?

 

I think I need some aspirin. I hope I can find it.

Link to comment

But don't your finds on your previous DNF's completely invalidate the DNF's? One could simply DNF on the day of the hunt, then post the find the same or even the next day. I'm sure CCCA has thousands of DNF's that were subsequently found, because I heard she's such a cheater.

 

This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You take your sponsor's cash, but don't use their product in the main body of your post. That's pretty unethical, in my opinion.

Link to comment

Perhaps what we need is a world record attempt, how may caches can you DNF in 24 hours. Users must prove they actually made the attempt by photographing themselves at the GZ and also by not signing the outide of the box with a sharpie (whatever that is). Also coming soon the "I havn't got it in my pocket anymore" cache :unsure: .

Link to comment

Perhaps what we need is a world record attempt, how may caches can you DNF in 24 hours. Users must prove they actually made the attempt by photographing themselves at the GZ and also by not signing the outide of the box with a sharpie (whatever that is). Also coming soon the "I havn't got it in my pocket anymore" cache :unsure: .

Such an attempt would require clear upfront disclosure of the guidelines followed when DNF'ing a cache. There are groups who travel around with a big van, dropping off people at various caches so they can not find the cache, then circling back to pick up all the searchers. Then, everyone in the group logs a DNF. I do not play by those rules.

 

I know this to be true. I have cached with wimseyguy. The man has perfected DNF's into an art form. If you follow the link to my bookmark list, you can see the benefits of a roadtrip to North Carolina. There is nothing like a day with wimseyguy to pad your DNF stats.

 

I felt dirty afterwards.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

The puppymonster is one of the snooty cachers that does not log his DNF's. He feels that he should not have to promote his stats. He feels that if people really want to know which caches he hasn't found, they can go to these caches and look in the logbooks. If his paw print is not in there, he must not have found it yet.

 

For such a happy guy, he really gets an attitude about people questioning his DNF's.

Link to comment

*logs*, the number of *caches* with *unresolved* DNF's now stands at 47. The difference between 47 and 160 is explained by a mixture of multiple DNF's on the same cache, caches later being archived because they weren't there, and my superior skills and determination in hunting down caches on return visits. Well, *mainly* the first two things.

 

This post has been brought to you by our sponsor, the *asterisk.*

Now that brings up an interesting point - if you DNF a cache that was never there, is it REALLY a DNF? After all, how can you not find something that wasn't there to be found in the first place?

Link to comment

Why all the angst? Can't you use some common sense? How can you consider padding your DNF count? Isn't just thinking about that cheating? Why can't the TPTB add a rule for this? When do you call it a DNF? When you enter the co-ords? Or hit 'goto'? At the parking lot? At GZ?

 

Why can't I get ?question mark? to sponser my post?

Link to comment
The puppymonster is one of the snooty cachers that does not log his DNF's. He feels that he should not have to promote his stats. He feels that if people really want to know which caches he hasn't found, they can go to these caches and look in the logbooks. If his paw print is not in there, he must not have found it yet.

 

For such a happy guy, he really gets an attitude about people questioning his DNF's.

He is ruining the 'sport' for the rest of us.

Link to comment

I can't believe that you people don't take logging your DNFs seriously. The only way to get an accurate geocaching average is the log either Found It or Did Not Find It every time you go looking for a cache. Your geocaching average it then your number of finds divided by your total attempts (finds plus DNFs). My geocaching average is 2513/(2513+376) = .870

:unsure:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Logging multiple DNF on the same cache robs this sport and you of any semblance of integrity. This practice only serves to cheapen the legitimate number of DNFs that I have logged on the caches that I haven't found.

 

I can see why you're losing sleep at night.

 

:ph34r:

 

Perhaps you should see this note on a cache near me -> http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...79-1cb31e249d21 This cache has had an interesting life, and actually hits many of the topics I have seen in this thread. For more cache history on this cache look here -> http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

:unsure:

Link to comment

Perhaps what we need is a world record attempt, how may caches can you DNF in 24 hours. Users must prove they actually made the attempt by photographing themselves at the GZ and also by not signing the outide of the box with a sharpie (whatever that is). Also coming soon the "I havn't got it in my pocket anymore" cache :unsure: .

 

unfortunately, I could set this record without even trying.... :ph34r:

Link to comment

Why all the angst? Can't you use some common sense? How can you consider padding your DNF count? Isn't just thinking about that cheating? Why can't the TPTB add a rule for this? When do you call it a DNF? When you enter the co-ords? Or hit 'goto'? At the parking lot? At GZ?

 

Why can't I get ?question mark? to sponser my post?

 

 

¿ ¿ ¿

¿ ¿ ¿

 

because you didn't ask correctly.

Link to comment

Some cachers have been documented to log a "find" because (in their own words) they "confirmed (they) were in the right area" even though they never actually put their hands on the cache.

 

So, if I confirm that I'm nowhere near the right area -- even hundreds, or thousands, of miles away -- can I log a DNF?

 

~The Slimy One brings up a good point. However, what if you are in the right area and can see the cache, but simply can't get to it because of your physical shortcomings?~

 

~If the cache is just beyond the reach of my fingers and no amount of prodding with a trekking pole will dislodge it, is it technically a DNF?~

 

~Inquiring tildes want to know.~

Link to comment
Some cachers have been documented to log a "find" because (in their own words) they "confirmed (they) were in the right area" even though they never actually put their hands on the cache.

 

So, if I confirm that I'm nowhere near the right area -- even hundreds, or thousands, of miles away -- can I log a DNF?

~The Slimy One brings up a good point. However, what if you are in the right area and can see the cache, but simply can't get to it because of your physical shortcomings?~

 

~If the cache is just beyond the reach of my fingers and no amount of prodding with a trekking pole will dislodge it, is it technically a DNF?~

 

~Inquiring tildes want to know.~

¶You can't tie or duct-tape a Sharpie to the end of your trekking pole so you can sign the container?

 

¶Sounds like you're just being a slacker, Crow. :unsure:

 

¶If that's the case, you don't deserve the DNF.

 

¶I'll see your ~ and raise you a ¶, which, interestingly enough, is called a pilcrow.

Link to comment

I feel as though I need to come clean.. I have an armchair DNF log. I can't help it I just seem to be finding the caches that I look for lately...

 

Dear Ann Geolanders,

 

I have a dilemma and i hope you can help. I woke up this morning and had a brief thought pass through my mind about a cache that i havn't found yet. I'm thinking it should be perfectly fine to claim my DNF on this cache since i did actually think about punching the coordinates into my GPSr. On the otherhand,, i sure don't want to be accused of cheating! :ph34r: This has been weighing on my mind heavily today. What should i do?

 

Signed,, Confused in Texas :unsure:

Link to comment

What really irks me is the whole FTDNF crowd. They go trespassing into parks at all hours of the night just to make a lame, half-hearted attempts in the general area just to be able to rush home to claim FTDNF. I hear that some of them cheat and let the air out of their tires in their own driveway and then rush back into their house to claim FTDNF.

Link to comment

Perhaps what we need is a world record attempt, how may caches can you DNF in 24 hours. Users must prove they actually made the attempt by photographing themselves at the GZ and also by not signing the outide of the box with a sharpie (whatever that is). Also coming soon the "I havn't got it in my pocket anymore" cache B) .

 

unfortunately, I could set this record without even trying.... :ph34r:

 

Been there, done that! :huh:

 

Since the community decided that we did in fact NOT find the 312 caches we found on our DRR world record attempt, plus the 42 we truly DNF'd, that means we had 354 DNFs in 24 hours - that's gotta be a new world record! :unsure:

 

Ed

Link to comment

I have a different dilemma. Should I count caches that I didn't find before I started caching? Part of me says yes, because I was near them and didn't sign the logbook. I don't want to pad my numbers, but there were times I was right on top of the cache and didn't find it, even though I didn't know it was there.

Link to comment
Perhaps what we need is a world record attempt, how may caches can you DNF in 24 hours. Users must prove they actually made the attempt by photographing themselves at the GZ and also by not signing the outide of the box with a sharpie (whatever that is). Also coming soon the "I havn't got it in my pocket anymore" cache :unsure: .
unfortunately, I could set this record without even trying.... :ph34r:
Been there, done that! B)

 

Since the community decided that we did in fact NOT find the 312 caches we found on our DRR world record attempt, plus the 42 we truly DNF'd, that means we had 354 DNFs in 24 hours - that's gotta be a new world record! B)

 

Ed

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*

 

Five-yard penalty for lack of excessive punctuation. :huh:

Link to comment

Just count it both ways then you can have cake twice!

 

An excellent and very practical solution. But I think you don't take it quite far enough: as I see it, based on the opinions expressed in the posts above, we can have cake four times:

  1. 100 DNF logs
  2. 100 unique DNF'd caches
  3. 100 caches that we DNF'd and have not subsequently found
  4. 100 caches that we DNF'd and have not subsequently found and that are still available to be found (not archived)

Interestingly, it would be possible to hit milestones #3 and #4 more than once, as those numbers could go up (as we DNF more caches) and back down (as caches are archived or we find them). So we could actually hit the 100 mark on those ones an infinite number of times.

 

Not that we would, of course. We do have some standards. (They're low, but we have them.)

 

There's only so much cake we can eat, after all.

 

This message brought to you by our sponsor, the number "100".

Edited by the hermit crabs
Link to comment

Quite honestly, I don't give a rat's fig how you count your DNF's, nor do I really care how you analyze mine. I'm secure and comfortable in how I maintain my stats, and they are there for me and not you. If you choose to post multi DNF's or singular I don't care. If you choose to not post DNF's that is your insecurity issue.

 

I know this to be true. I have cached with wimseyguy. The man has perfected DNF's into an art form. If you follow the link to my bookmark list, you can see the benefits of a roadtrip to North Carolina. There is nothing like a day with wimseyguy to pad your DNF stats.

 

I felt dirty afterwards.

 

I showed you where the men's room was as the rest area. You said you were more comfortable going out behind the dumpster. Some sort of local tradition or something... :unsure:

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
Quite honestly, I don't give a rat's fig how you count your DNF's, nor do I really care how you analyze mine. I'm secure and comfortable in how I maintain my stats, and they are there for me and not you. If you choose to post multi DNF's or singular I don't care. If you choose to not post DNF's that is your insecurity issue.
I know this to be true. I have cached with wimseyguy. The man has perfected DNF's into an art form. If you follow the link to my bookmark list, you can see the benefits of a roadtrip to North Carolina. There is nothing like a day with wimseyguy to pad your DNF stats.

 

I felt dirty afterwards.

I showed you where the men's room was as the rest area. You said you were more comfortable going out behind the dumpster. Some sort of local tradition or something... :unsure:
Ummm, these forums are supposed to be 'family friendly'. :ph34r:
Link to comment

You can't have your cake and eat it too; therefore, if you want to eat the cake, you must first not have it; which means you must DNF it.

 

I have an easy solution to the problem of what is a true DNF; we will simply put you and the cache in a box. As long as no one looks inside, you have both found and not found the cache, as far as we know; so every find can be counted as a DNF, and every DNF as a find. Pay no attention to the cat and the vial of cyanide in the box with you.

 

THIS post was sponsored by ;!

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...
×
×
  • Create New...