Declaring a DNF

January 20, 2007

How long do you search before calling it a DNF for the day?

3k · January 20, 2007

Depends on the type of cache. We've walked away after an hour and as much as 4 hours. Some will call it in about 15 minutes or less. Depends on how far you have to hike for it mostly. <_<

14.3k · January 20, 2007

How long do you search before calling it a DNF for the day?

It really depends how much effort I have already put into the cache. I seldom go longer than 30 minutes.

January 20, 2007

Boy, that's a loaded question. For me there are so many variables. How much time do I have? Do I feel some mysterious need to log this specific cache? How far did I drive to get to it? Is it supposed to be a easy lvl 1 park and grab, or a tricky lvl 4 micro in the woods? Do I have 20 other potential finds in the area that I could log instead? The muggle factor also comes into play: am I near a busy intersection where it would look odd, or possibly suspicious for me to be poking around, or am I in the country, or forest somewhere else that the amount of time I spent staring at the ground or in the trees wouldn't matter to those around.

I guess the answer is that there is no one answer for me. In public spaces, I tend to stay no more than 10 or 15 minutes, situation depending. In the woods, I search until I run out of ideas, or run out of time.

January 20, 2007

Woah, deja vu.

18.9k · January 20, 2007

For the most part we give anything under 3 star difficulty about 30 - 45 minutes. Some as little as 20 depending on the location and what we see. Weather also plays a large factor. Hardeer ones a bit longer or several trips. Always log the DNF if we walk away though.

January 20, 2007

Woah, deja vu.

yea

Everybody has their own way, but if I set out to look for a cache, and can not log a find, I log a DNF. Even if I can't find a suitable parking location. In my mind I went out looking for this cache, and am coming back empty handed. Sounds like a didn't find it to me <_<

14.3k · January 20, 2007

Woah, deja vu.

yea

Everybody has their own way, but if I set out to look for a cache, and can not log a find, I log a DNF. Even if I can't find a suitable parking location. In my mind I went out looking for this cache, and am coming back empty handed. Sounds like a didn't find it to me

I'm from the camp that only logs DNFs when I think the cache is missing. I'll post a note if I had an unsuccessful attempt, but feel that the cache is still there.

January 20, 2007

I search until I feel like im going to cry. That usually takes about an hour lol

38.2k · January 20, 2007

It all depends on the cache. If its a 1 or 2 star difficulty and I don't see DNFs among the logs I'll probably search for 15 minutes before giving up. 3+ star difficulty I rarely attempt, but if I do I will give myself about 45 minutes to an hour. To me it stops being fun after about 45 minutes.

9.3k · January 20, 2007

As many have stated before, "It Depends". I search till it's no longer fun. The longest single search attempt which resulted in a DNF after reaching ground zero was 5 hours at Palatka Park Shelter. The shortest was 5 seconds at a Burger King film canister in the bushes cache. We went back to PPS and searched another 2 hours, logging another DNF. It's a 4 hour round trip to this one, so we've actually dedicated 15 hours so far on it. <_<

(yeah, we need a life)

7.2k · January 20, 2007

How long do you search before calling it a DNF for the day?

When it is no longer fun then add a few minutes because I don't want to walk away from the investment in time.

I know it's not part of the OP, but my take on when to log a DNF is when I didn't find it--if I feel like logging it at all. While I know some folks can determine whether the cache is still there regardless of them finding it or not, I don't have that power. If I don't find it I have no idea if it is still there or not--so I log a DNF.

4.5k · January 20, 2007

How long do you search before calling it a DNF for the day?

There is no set time limit for searching for a cache. Each person has their own preferences, some only search for 5 minutes and others will look for hours for a single cache. Regardless of how much time you spend looking for the cache, a DNF is always the same. It occurs when you begin the search and have to give up, for any reason, before actually finding the cache.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Mudfrog

6.5k · January 20, 2007

When looking for it stops being fun. If I didn't find it I post a Did Not Find note no matter what the situation. Heck, I've even posted them on disabled and archived caches that I wasted time looking for due to my occasional inability to keep the data in my GPS up to date. :blink:

edit to add:there have been a few times when I kept searching after the fun was gone, just because I knew it was there and I wanted to check the D@^$ thing off my todo list and didn't want to return there ever again. Kind of like a dog holding onto a bone I guess. :laughing:

Edited January 20, 2007 by wimseyguy

3.5k · January 21, 2007

How long do you search before calling it a DNF for the day?

I search until I don't find it. Then I declare it to be a DNF.

Bret

P.S. It all depends on how much time I've got to search....5 minutes....15....2 hours...whatever.

1.1k · January 21, 2007

Add me to the "I search until it's no longer fun" camp. For micros of the lame/urban variety, my time limit is generally 5-10 minutes. If it's a worthwhile location, however, micro or not I'll often go as long as 45 minutes...in that case I'm glad the cache hider brought me to that location whether or not I can earn a smiley for the effort.

Case in point, here's a micro that stumped me, but I still spent over 45 minutes lingering around the location and taking photos: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...cd-26ecd4a0eca7

1.3k · January 21, 2007

As many have already said, there are so many variables that go into my decision on how much time to devote before throwing in the towel that there is no clear-cut answer. I have called it quits in as little as ten minutes on some caches, while spending two or more hours on others.

January 21, 2007

If we give the cache a honest effort I will log a DNF. If it is a drive by get out and look real quick but I only have a few minutes, and don't REALLY look for it, I probably won't log a DNF. There are a couple of caches that I have logged a DNF on more then once. When to quit looking? We quit looking when the kids are tired or its cold out and we need to get warm, or I can get 10 more caches if I give up on this one and continue on. Usually the magic number for us is about 20-30 minutes for a first attempt.

January 21, 2007

DNF There is no such animal :laughing:

January 22, 2007

Just like pretty much everyone else has said, there is no definite amount of time. I am of pretty much the same mindset as Signal 98. I don't care how many stars it has, I will search for a cache until I find it or until I think my wife is pissed that I'm not home. If I can't find it before time runs out, then I'll walk away, log a DNF and come back for another 4 hours the next day if I have to. Guess that explains my screen name.

I don't get the "I don't log a DNF unless I think it is missing, I just post a note" attitude. The whole idea of a DNF is that you tried to find the cache and did not find it on that attempt, besides it is very hard to tell whether a cache is missing or not. I have a cache out that people find to be very difficult to find but several locals have told me they found the coords to be right on. A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud.

14.3k · January 22, 2007

I don't get the "I don't log a DNF unless I think it is missing, I just post a note" attitude. The whole idea of a DNF is that you tried to find the cache and did not find it on that attempt, besides it is very hard to tell whether a cache is missing or not. I have a cache out that people find to be very difficult to find but several locals have told me they found the coords to be right on. A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud.

If someone posts a DNF on your cache you have to run out and check on it. If you have hidden it in a clever way this can become a nuisance. Is it there or not? Sometimes I can't get out to my cache and I'll get a second DNF log so I have to go check it out because I won't visit any cache that has two consecutive DNF logs. So if I come across a cache and only look for 10 minutes, I don't want to log a DNF to make the owner run out and check on the cache. So I post a note instead explaining what I did. I guess I view it as a courtesy to the cache owner cause I know it's a pain to make him run out and check on the cache for nothing. I still don't think it's a big deal to do it that way....

BTW, I didn't follow your point at the end: "A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud."

January 22, 2007

my time limit is how long till my kids go flake and start to take off on us. The other half is the one that usually corals them, but not always. I tried finding one cache 5 times and finally have given up. Its been found again recently, so I am planning on trying for it the next time I'm in town - with kids in tow!

January 23, 2007

I don't get the "I don't log a DNF unless I think it is missing, I just post a note" attitude. The whole idea of a DNF is that you tried to find the cache and did not find it on that attempt, besides it is very hard to tell whether a cache is missing or not. I have a cache out that people find to be very difficult to find but several locals have told me they found the coords to be right on. A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud.
If someone posts a DNF on your cache you have to run out and check on it. If you have hidden it in a clever way this can become a nuisance. Is it there or not? Sometimes I can't get out to my cache and I'll get a second DNF log so I have to go check it out because I won't visit any cache that has two consecutive DNF logs. So if I come across a cache and only look for 10 minutes, I don't want to log a DNF to make the owner run out and check on the cache. So I post a note instead explaining what I did. I guess I view it as a courtesy to the cache owner cause I know it's a pain to make him run out and check on the cache for nothing. I still don't think it's a big deal to do it that way....

BTW, I didn't follow your point at the end: "A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud."

I guess I feel differently about logging a DNF because I don't check my cache on each DNF. I check each cache about once per month unless I have a couple of DNFs in a row. The acronym stands for Did Not Find, not Did Not Find This Time and Now I Believe the Cache Has Been Muggled. I believe that logging the DNF is a courtesy to the cache owner, telling him or her that I couldn't find the cache when I tried looking for it. So it may be gone yet, I may have not been looking in the right place and you may want to check it if more people can't find the cache. Not only that, but it is also a courtesy to the other cachers showing that you tried looking for the cache and failed in that attempt. I write notes when I return to a cache for a TB or I bring a possible newbie to the location.

The point I was trying to make at the end was that you can not accurately determine whether a cache has been muggled or not unless you have previously found the cache or hid the cache. The person who logged a DNF stating my cache was muggled couldn't find an easier version of the cache that I hid so how can he expect to be a good judge of whether or not my cache was gone.

2.5k · January 23, 2007

I don't get the "I don't log a DNF unless I think it is missing, I just post a note" attitude. The whole idea of a DNF is that you tried to find the cache and did not find it on that attempt, besides it is very hard to tell whether a cache is missing or not. I have a cache out that people find to be very difficult to find but several locals have told me they found the coords to be right on. A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud.
If someone posts a DNF on your cache you have to run out and check on it. If you have hidden it in a clever way this can become a nuisance. Is it there or not? Sometimes I can't get out to my cache and I'll get a second DNF log so I have to go check it out because I won't visit any cache that has two consecutive DNF logs. So if I come across a cache and only look for 10 minutes, I don't want to log a DNF to make the owner run out and check on the cache. So I post a note instead explaining what I did. I guess I view it as a courtesy to the cache owner cause I know it's a pain to make him run out and check on the cache for nothing. I still don't think it's a big deal to do it that way....

I don't think you have to run out and check on your cche every time anyone posts a DNF. DNF doesn't mean "the cache ain't there" is means "I looked for it, but I couldn't find it" I used to go check after two or three separate DNFs but every time I did that, I found my cache right where I left it, or close enough.

I had some guys read me a riot act and threaten to try to have my cache archived if I didn't go check it. They knew it was missing because they DNF'd it--so I went to look and ya know what, it was a foot to the left of where I hid it. I don't know why they didn't find it, maybe they looked in the wrong place, maybe they had the wrong coords, maybe they were hunting it in the dark by match light, maybe they just didn't have the geocaching mojo going on--the cache was basically where it was supposed to be.

I don't base my own searches on DNFs either. When I'm caching, if four people with fewer than 50 finds couldn't find it, I'm not as concerned as if two people with 500 finds couldn't find it. If two people (with any number of finds) say they looked for an hour, I'm more concerned than if four people say they looked around for ten minutes and couldn't find it.

If you've hidden the cache in a clever way, it should be challenging to find.

14.3k · January 23, 2007

I don't get the "I don't log a DNF unless I think it is missing, I just post a note" attitude. The whole idea of a DNF is that you tried to find the cache and did not find it on that attempt, besides it is very hard to tell whether a cache is missing or not. I have a cache out that people find to be very difficult to find but several locals have told me they found the coords to be right on. A guy logs a DNF saying that this cache must have been muggled, and when I go to check on the cache; I find it to be less hidden than when I first placed it. So logging DNFs when the cache is missing is just plain crud.
If someone posts a DNF on your cache you have to run out and check on it. If you have hidden it in a clever way this can become a nuisance. Is it there or not? Sometimes I can't get out to my cache and I'll get a second DNF log so I have to go check it out because I won't visit any cache that has two consecutive DNF logs. So if I come across a cache and only look for 10 minutes, I don't want to log a DNF to make the owner run out and check on the cache. So I post a note instead explaining what I did. I guess I view it as a courtesy to the cache owner cause I know it's a pain to make him run out and check on the cache for nothing. I still don't think it's a big deal to do it that way....

I don't think you have to run out and check on your cche every time anyone posts a DNF. DNF doesn't mean "the cache ain't there" is means "I looked for it, but I couldn't find it" I used to go check after two or three separate DNFs but every time I did that, I found my cache right where I left it, or close enough.

That's the difference. As a cache owner I always take a DNF log as a possibility that the cache is gone. Especially because none of my hides are that tough to find. So I will go out check on my cache when there is a DNF because I know that it sucks when I can't find a cache and I then check my Palm and find out that there was a prior DNF log and the owner has does nothing. If there are 2-3 DNFs then it really is annoying. If an experienced cacher logs a DNF on my cache I'll email him and asked him where he looked. If he looked in the right spot then I will temporarily disable my cache until I get out there and check on it/replace it. So the point is that I take DNFs seriously and assume that everyone else does too.

January 24, 2007

30 minutes is the Max limit for me.

I will log a DNF if I don't find it or if I give up.

I recently searched for a cache on 3 seperate occasions till I finally found it. I logged the 2 previous visits as DNF's.

January 24, 2007

I agree with a previous post or two , i will give the harder ones 30-45 minutes or so...or until it gets very frustrating at which time it is no longer fun. I may come back a few days later and try again,hopefully i will know someone to call for help if needed.

January 24, 2007

So the point is that I take DNFs seriously and assume that everyone else does too.

Who's saying we don't take DNFs seriously? I think as a cacher who is searching for a cache we take DNF logs more serious than you do. If you didn't find it, it should be a DNF log. If you didn't find it and you're convinced that it's missing (which is totally a judgement call, you can't say definitively that a cache is missing*) then you should log a DNF and then log a "Needs Maintenance" log. If it's missing, it obviously needs maintenance, now that is a HUGE hint to the owner that something is probably up with their cache, not to mention that the added attribute also tips off other cachers to steer clear.

A DNF doesn't mean your cache is missing, it means someone couldn't find it. I have a cache back in Ohio that has received many DNFs (and others who just didn't log at all). I would usually contact the cacher and offer up a helpful hint and ask them a little bit about where they were searching. If I think they know what they're looking for and they were looking in the right spot, I'll ask my parents to stop by and check on it. So far, of the 13 DNFs, the cache has been checked about 4 times. It has yet to be missing.

*- I'm aware there are certain circumstances when you see half a strip of velcro or some other evidence of where the cache was. In that case you could be pretty sure it's missing, but maybe it fell of the velcro so someone hid it under a rock nearby??

Jared of AZBliss02

14.3k · January 24, 2007

So the point is that I take DNFs seriously and assume that everyone else does too.

Who's saying we don't take DNFs seriously? I think as a cacher who is searching for a cache we take DNF logs more serious than you do. If you didn't find it, it should be a DNF log. If you didn't find it and you're convinced that it's missing (which is totally a judgement call, you can't say definitively that a cache is missing*) then you should log a DNF and then log a "Needs Maintenance" log. If it's missing, it obviously needs maintenance, now that is a HUGE hint to the owner that something is probably up with their cache, not to mention that the added attribute also tips off other cachers to steer clear.

A DNF doesn't mean your cache is missing, it means someone couldn't find it. I have a cache back in Ohio that has received many DNFs (and others who just didn't log at all). I would usually contact the cacher and offer up a helpful hint and ask them a little bit about where they were searching. If I think they know what they're looking for and they were looking in the right spot, I'll ask my parents to stop by and check on it. So far, of the 13 DNFs, the cache has been checked about 4 times. It has yet to be missing.

*- I'm aware there are certain circumstances when you see half a strip of velcro or some other evidence of where the cache was. In that case you could be pretty sure it's missing, but maybe it fell of the velcro so someone hid it under a rock nearby??

Jared of AZBliss02

Did you read what I wrote? If you take it out of context then it means something completely different. So to repeat: I take a DNF log seriously as a sign that the cache "may" be missing. I investigate the situation everytime someone logs a DNF log on one of my caches. To me it sounded like some people don't do this. It is really annoying to look for a cache that has DNF logs and is not being maintained. That is what I meant by taking it seriously. By the way, whenever I give an honest attempt at finding a cache and I don't find it I log a DNF.

January 24, 2007

Did you read what I wrote? If you take it out of context then it means something completely different. So to repeat: I take a DNF log seriously as a sign that the cache "may" be missing. I investigate the situation everytime someone logs a DNF log on one of my caches. To me it sounded like some people don't do this. It is really annoying to look for a cache that has DNF logs and is not being maintained. That is what I meant by taking it seriously.

Okay, that's fine if you want to check on your caches every time someone logs a DNF, but just because someone doesn't do that, it doesn't mean they aren't maintaining their cache. The cache owner knows more about their cache than someone who hasn't found it. Sometimes you know that your cache is hidden in a manner that has a high chance of never being muggled and poses quite a challenge for cachers to find. I'm sure they stay on top of their caches, but I can't imagine they'd spend their time going out there after each DNF.

By the way, whenever I give an honest attempt at finding a cache and I don't find it I log a DNF.

If that's the case then why did you say:

I'm from the camp that only logs DNFs when I think the cache is missing. I'll post a note if I had an unsuccessful attempt, but feel that the cache is still there.

It sounds like, in reality, you're more in the same camp as the rest of us. I mean unless you get run off by muggles or weather or something, who isn't going to give an honest attempt? I don't think we're that far of from one another.

Truth is, it doesn't really matter I guess. You obviously go above and beyond with the maintenance of your caches and there shouldn't be anything wrong with you assuming that others are the same way. **Please note that I'm NOT being sarcastic**

Jared

January 25, 2007

Bliss - I appreciate your posts; sounds like your of the same frame of mind as I am.

I know my caches pretty well. I have ones that are hard finds and I have ones that are easy. If I recieve a DNF on an easy one, I will probably go check on it. If it is a hard one to find, I will wait until I get one or two more DNFs.

Like I said before, I check each one of my caches about once per month whether someone has logged in the last month or not. I believe I am maintaining the caches just fine. If someone can't find a cache it usually isn't very long before I check it anyway or someone else finds it.

I take DNFs very seriously. In fact, I want as many people as possible to find some of my caches and on those I don't want to see DNFs. On others of mine, I want to see those DNFs to show how good I hid the cache. Just because I am confident in my maintenance schedule and know the nature of each of my caches and the probability of each one of them being found, does not mean that I don't take DNFs seriously.

Frankly that assumption makes an a** out of you, not me.

January 25, 2007

Okay, that's fine if you want to check on your caches every time someone logs a DNF, but just because someone doesn't do that, it doesn't mean they aren't maintaining their cache. The cache owner knows more about their cache than someone who hasn't found it. Sometimes you know that your cache is hidden in a manner that has a high chance of never being muggled and poses quite a challenge for cachers to find. I'm sure they stay on top of their caches, but I can't imagine they'd spend their time going out there after each DNF.

That's my take on it, as well.

DNFs simply mean "did not find", and not every cache is so easy it can be found by each and every seeker. With some caches, if you look at the logs, you'll see multiple DNFs interspersed with "found it" logs; that indicates it's a tricky cache, not that it's missing, and the hider would be foolish to run out and check it each and every time someone can't find it. (This is most common with tricky micros/nanos in my area.)

OTOH, when a cache is found by *most* seekers, and/or is intended to be fairly easy to find, and you get a DNF, then it often is an indication of trouble. Even so, I wouldn't necessarily take a DNF by a fairly new seeker as an indication that the cache is missing - unless they added detail which corroborated it. (For example: "I searched the area for 30 minutes, including what's described in the hint, and found no sign of the cache. However, I did find signs of flooding in the area.")

It all depends on the individual cache.

WRT the original question... personally, I don't log a DNF every time I start out to look for a cache and don't find it. As so many others have said, it depends on the circumstances - whether I really had time to look for it, whether I think it's actually missing, and what I know about the difficulty of the cache....

What it boils down to, for me, is whether or not I think my reasons for DNF need to be communicated to the hider and/or other cachers.

Edited January 25, 2007 by cimawr

Declaring a DNF

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation