Etiquette of removing my own DNFs?

[+imajeep]

I cleared a DNF off my list tonight. Do I leave the DNF, or delete it, now that I've found the cache?

 

Here's why I ask: If I delete the DNFs once I find them, I am left with a very maintainable list of 'live' DNFs that I can use to pick caches to go take another crack at. But, if it's considered bad form to do so, I can live without it.

 

So, what's the etiquette here?

Edited July 11, 2007 by imajeep

[+FamilyDNA]

Leave the DNF. The fact that you found it today doesn't change that you didn't find it before. Occasional DNFs give future hunters a clue of difficulty.

[+hukilaulau]

Leave the DNF. The fact that you found it today doesn't change that you didn't find it before. Occasional DNFs give future hunters a clue of difficulty.

Ditto what he said. Just keep your unfound DNF's in a seperate bookmark list.

[+TrailGators]

I cleared a DNF off my list tonight. Do I leave the DNF, or delete it, now that I've found the cache?

 

Here's why I ask: If I delete the DNFs once I find them, I am left with a very maintainable list of 'live' DNFs that I can use to pick caches to go take another crack at. But, if it's considered bad form to do so, I can live without it.

 

So, what's the etiquette here?

I don't think it hurts anything to do it the way you proposed. IN fact, it makes sense to me. You didn't find it and then you found it. Who cares if you once didn't find it? I say do what you want. It's your cache page.

[Neos2]

I cleared a DNF off my list tonight. Do I leave the DNF, or delete it, now that I've found the cache?

 

Here's why I ask: If I delete the DNFs once I find them, I am left with a very maintainable list of 'live' DNFs that I can use to pick caches to go take another crack at. But, if it's considered bad form to do so, I can live without it.

 

So, what's the etiquette here?

I don't think it hurts anything to do it the way you proposed. IN fact, it makes sense to me. You didn't find it and then you found it. Who cares if you once didn't find it? I say do what you want. It's your cache page.

It's imajeep's cache log--but it's on the cache owner's cache page -or maybe it belongs to all of us, I sometimes think of it that way.

 

The fact is, knowing that someone has DNF'd a cache in the past, and found it on a second (or twelfth) attempt can be useful to the rest of us--and it can certainly be helpful to the cache owner to decide if they have the cache rated correctly. I had one cache that kept getting DNFs but only from really novice cachers, it wasn't until I finally heard from a few veteran cachers that they were not finding it (but not logging DNFs) that I realized I had it rated too low.

 

GSAK or a bookmark list makes a better way to keep track of DNFs you still need to attempt. That way, you even have the old logs of your attempts as a kind of record of what you tried (without giving too much away) --and besides, the DNFs are sometimes the most enjoyable logs of all to read.

 

While you certainly can delete your old log, I'd leave it.

I do leave my DNFs. I don't know anyone who deletes them.

[+TrailGators]

I cleared a DNF off my list tonight. Do I leave the DNF, or delete it, now that I've found the cache?

 

Here's why I ask: If I delete the DNFs once I find them, I am left with a very maintainable list of 'live' DNFs that I can use to pick caches to go take another crack at. But, if it's considered bad form to do so, I can live without it.

 

So, what's the etiquette here?

I don't think it hurts anything to do it the way you proposed. IN fact, it makes sense to me. You didn't find it and then you found it. Who cares if you once didn't find it? I say do what you want. It's your cache page.

It's imajeep's cache log--but it's on the cache owner's cache page -or maybe it belongs to all of us, I sometimes think of it that way.

 

The fact is, knowing that someone has DNF'd a cache in the past, and found it on a second (or twelfth) attempt can be useful to the rest of us--and it can certainly be helpful to the cache owner to decide if they have the cache rated correctly. I had one cache that kept getting DNFs but only from really novice cachers, it wasn't until I finally heard from a few veteran cachers that they were not finding it (but not logging DNFs) that I realized I had it rated too low.

 

GSAK or a bookmark list makes a better way to keep track of DNFs you still need to attempt. That way, you even have the old logs of your attempts as a kind of record of what you tried (without giving too much away) --and besides, the DNFs are sometimes the most enjoyable logs of all to read.

 

While you certainly can delete your old log, I'd leave it.

I do leave my DNFs. I don't know anyone who deletes them.

When I first started paperless caching I found it to be very annoying when I checked past logs on a cache and someone had 2 DNFs and a find to hog 3 of the 5 past logs, that you get with a GPX file. So I decided that a better approach would be to leave my DNF logs in the beginning of my find log. This would allow paperless cachers to have one log from me, and four logs from someone else. Yet it still maintained my history on that cache.

[+Knight2000]

I say absolutely do not delete it.

 

If you want to keep track use a bookmark.

 

It is part of a cache history.

[+BlueDeuce]

eh, leave it.

 

Later you can brag about how many you have. Seriously. Including the ratio of DNF but found and DNF and still not found.

[Neos2]

When I first started paperless caching I found it to be very annoying when I checked past logs on a cache and someone had 2 DNFs and a find to hog 3 of the 5 past logs, that you get with a GPX file. So I decided that a better approach would be to leave my DNF logs in the beginning of my find log. This would allow paperless cachers to have one log from me, and four logs from someone else. Yet it still maintained my history on that cache.

In the few short years I've been caching (3), I've only seen that once. Luckily for me, I don't do away with the old logs when I run my new PQ through GSAK, so I had ten cache logs or more on that cache.

 

I have seen other people go back and edit their first DNF to add additional dates and stories (I think that is what you are suggesting?). One drawback of that is the cache owner doesn't get a notification every time you edit your cache log.

[+TrailGators]

When I first started paperless caching I found it to be very annoying when I checked past logs on a cache and someone had 2 DNFs and a find to hog 3 of the 5 past logs, that you get with a GPX file. So I decided that a better approach would be to leave my DNF logs in the beginning of my find log. This would allow paperless cachers to have one log from me, and four logs from someone else. Yet it still maintained my history on that cache.

In the few short years I've been caching (3), I've only seen that once. Luckily for me, I don't do away with the old logs when I run my new PQ through GSAK, so I had ten cache logs or more on that cache.

 

I have seen other people go back and edit their first DNF to add additional dates and stories (I think that is what you are suggesting?). One drawback of that is the cache owner doesn't get a notification every time you edit your cache log.

In general notes and DNFs take up space for the past logs when you go paperless. Of course, if the DNFs and notes are not frivilous they are useful. The irony is that is if people could read more of the past find logs maybe they wouldn't have DNFed the cache. Like I said, I record all my history when I finally have found the cache. My remaining DNFs would represent caches that I never found. The only negative of doing it this way is that I wouldn't be able to compete for the most DNFs. But I'm not a numbers person so that doesn't matter to me anyhow.... Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Leave it. It is part of the history of the cache. If you want a list of your live DNFs, consider creating a bookmark list.

[+Miragee]

Leave it. It is part of the history of the cache. If you want a list of your live DNFs, consider creating a bookmark list.

That is exactly what I do. I have a "Private" Bookmark list of my "As-Yet-Unresolved-DNFs." Some are in far-flung places I traveled to. I will never have an opportunity to find those caches, but every time I get a "Found it" log, I get to remember a cache I didn't find.

 

Other caches are local. Sometimes I get logs for subsequent DNFs, other times I get logs that say "Easy find." And yesterday, after several additional DNFs on a cache, I got a log stating someone found it.

 

Leaving the DNF keeps your caching history, and the history of the cache, intact.

[+TrailGators]

Leaving the DNF keeps your caching history, and the history of the cache, intact.

Writing your full search history in your find log doesn't keep your history and the history of the cache intact? There is more than one way to skin a cat... Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+StarBrand]

Leave it. It is part of the history of the cache. If you want a list of your live DNFs, consider creating a bookmark list.

Exactly.....

[+Miragee]

Leaving the DNF keeps your caching history, and the history of the cache, intact.

Writing your full search history in your find log doesn't keep your history and the history of the cache intact? There is more than one way to skin a cat...

I can see how many DNFs I have posted during my caching history. If you change your DNF to a "Found it," you cannot do that.

 

If you aren't into statistics, then that's fine. However, some people are.

 

Also, as someone said, if you Edit your DNF, the cache owner doesn't get a message. If you delete your DNF, that doesn't let other cachers know someone had trouble finding the cache.

 

I use GSAKs "Last 2 DNF" filter to get rid of problematic caches when I go caching, and by keeping my database up-to-date, I frequently have as many as 15 Past Logs in my Palm to review. Having a few DNFs in those 15 is not a problem. In fact, it lets me know I'm not alone . . . if I'm having trouble finding the cache . . which is the only time I have to review the Past Logs in my Palm.

[+TrailGators]

I'm getting the feeling that I'm the only one that puts all my history into my one find log. Will the peer pressure get to me? Is it really that important? Nope!

Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's no etiquette. You can do whatever suits you. Of course, if you delete them, you'll not be able to celebrate your 100th DNF milestone! or 200th for that matter. I'm at 154, working hard to get to 200....Okay, not so hard - truthfully if I was into racking up DNFs, I could spend a couple of weekends hunting urban micros, but that ain't gonna happen ;-)

[+Driver Carries Cache]

So, what's the etiquette here?

 

I say leave them. It's part of the cache's history, and your history as a cacher. I've been keeping track of, and trying to convert into "finds" my list of DNF's seen in my profile.

 

Driver Carries Cache

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'll play devil's advocate here. I have no concern for the paperless people worried about the last five logs bein taken up by DNFs. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should change our way of operating to conform to their problems.

Myself, I do not log all my DNFs. I seldom log more than one per cache. My prerogative. But there are many that I will not log DNFs for! I'm not into inflating the ego of certain cache hiders.

That being said: If I feel my failure to deserve a DNF, then I will post such proudly! I have 146 now. Those I would never change. As someone said: They are part of the history. Bot my history, and the history of the cache.

[+Packanack]

Who really cares?

Not being snarkily nasty, but there is an expression, don't sweat the small stuff--and it is all small stuff. Don't let these small issues loom so large that they affect your having an enjoyable hobby. Emphasis on YOUR Having an enjoyable hobby.

[+TrailGators]

Who really cares?

Not being snarkily nasty, but there is an expression, don't sweat the small stuff--and it is all small stuff. Don't let these small issues loom so large that they affect your having an enjoyable hobby. Emphasis on YOUR Having an enjoyable hobby.

That's how I feel. There are a lot bigger fish to fry.....

[+TrailGators]

I'll play devil's advocate here. I have no concern for the paperless people worried about the last five logs bein taken up by DNFs. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should change our way of operating to conform to their problems.

Harry, I don't really care what you guys do. That's why I do what I do. Like Sinatra once sang "I did it my way....."

[+imajeep]

Who really cares?

Not being snarkily nasty, but there is an expression, don't sweat the small stuff--and it is all small stuff. Don't let these small issues loom so large that they affect your having an enjoyable hobby. Emphasis on YOUR Having an enjoyable hobby.

 

Hey, if that's what it was all about, then I'd just take up coin collecting!

 

In all seriousness, it's not a big deal. But when you're a newbie, it's easy to breach the local rules of etiquette without knowing it. IMHO, always best to check first. I think it comes from travelling overseas.

 

Taking all of the above opinions into account, here's what I think I'm going to do. I'm going to clear a DNF once I find the cache, but I'm going to note in the find log how many tries it took to find the cache. That way, later hunters get an idea of the difficulty of the cache, but paperless cachers (like me and Ms. Imajeep) don't lose one of their five logs (Jeremy, please, please increase it to twenty!) to one of my DNFs.

 

Thanks for the advice, one and all!

Edited July 12, 2007 by imajeep

[+briansnat]

That way, later hunters get an idea of the difficulty of the cache, but paperless cachers (like me and Ms. Imajeep) don't lose one of their five logs (Jeremy, please, please increase it to twenty!) to one of my DNFs.

 

How are paperless cachers losing a log with a DNF? When I'm having trouble with a cache and check the last 5 logs in Cachemate, DNFs are as important to me as Found Its. I can see that "Joe Cacher" and "GaryGPS" couldn't find it, but "Hiker Harry", "Cachehunter" and "Big Bob" did, so I should keep looking because it's obviously not easy. But if I look and see the last 5 all found it, I'll probably assume its missing and give up.

 

Also people who use apps like GSAK only see the icon and not the text so they won't know that someone found it, but it took him 5 tries. They just see the smiley.

Edited July 12, 2007 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

That way, later hunters get an idea of the difficulty of the cache, but paperless cachers (like me and Ms. Imajeep) don't lose one of their five logs (Jeremy, please, please increase it to twenty!) to one of my DNFs.

 

How are paperless cachers losing a log with a DNF? When I'm having trouble with a cache and check the last 5 logs in Cachemate, DNFs are as important to me as Found Its. I can see that "Joe Cacher" and "GaryGPS" couldn't find it, but "Hiker Harry", "Cachehunter" and "Big Bob" did, so I should keep looking because it's obviously not easy. But if I look and see the last 5 all found it, I'll probably assume its missing and give up.

 

Also people who use apps like GSAK only see the icon and not the text so they won't know that someone found it, but it took him 5 tries. They just see the smiley.

The comment was made in regards to frivilous DNFs like "some muggles were near by so I called off my search" or "I only had two minutes to look but I didn't find it." The ones that used to drive me nuts were when I was having trouble finding a cache and the log said "5 of 10 for the day. TFTC." Another common note: "Bug drop." I agree that it is very handy to know about a true DNF.

[+Icyjane]

What about this scenario: Went to grab a cache in a series of bison tubes one day recently. GPSr gets me to ground zero, I see the geotrail, clues tell me I'm in the right spot, but no cache. I logged my DNF once I was home. The next day I get an email from the owner stating the cache was missing, but a group of cachers that were there after me had called him to report his missing bison tube. So, the group of cachers just happened to have a bison tube and a new log, signed it, therefore replacing his cache for him. No where on the cache page, or any of the cachers logs after me mentioned the cache was missing/replaced. I deleted my DNF, went back and found the cache, and posted my new "found it" log. I also emailed the owner and let him know why I deleted the DNF. I'm all for people doing cache maintenance, I often replace full logs, failing ziploc bags etc, but I think replacing a cache thats been muggled in order to avoid a DNF is a little sketchy. Of course, that's my opinion, and I figure that and 59 cents will get me a Krystal. What's the boards opinion on this kind of thing?

[+admo1972]

What about this scenario: Went to grab a cache in a series of bison tubes one day recently. GPSr gets me to ground zero, I see the geotrail, clues tell me I'm in the right spot, but no cache. I logged my DNF once I was home. The next day I get an email from the owner stating the cache was missing, but a group of cachers that were there after me had called him to report his missing bison tube. So, the group of cachers just happened to have a bison tube and a new log, signed it, therefore replacing his cache for him. No where on the cache page, or any of the cachers logs after me mentioned the cache was missing/replaced. I deleted my DNF, went back and found the cache, and posted my new "found it" log. I also emailed the owner and let him know why I deleted the DNF. I'm all for people doing cache maintenance, I often replace full logs, failing ziploc bags etc, but I think replacing a cache thats been muggled in order to avoid a DNF is a little sketchy. Of course, that's my opinion, and I figure that and 59 cents will get me a Krystal. What's the boards opinion on this kind of thing?

 

Personally I would have left the DNF, and also logged a Find, and you can tell the story how it was misisng when you were last there, but was replaced by whatever user replaced it.

[+briansnat]

What about this scenario: Went to grab a cache in a series of bison tubes one day recently. GPSr gets me to ground zero, I see the geotrail, clues tell me I'm in the right spot, but no cache. I logged my DNF once I was home. The next day I get an email from the owner stating the cache was missing, but a group of cachers that were there after me had called him to report his missing bison tube. So, the group of cachers just happened to have a bison tube and a new log, signed it, therefore replacing his cache for him. No where on the cache page, or any of the cachers logs after me mentioned the cache was missing/replaced. I deleted my DNF, went back and found the cache, and posted my new "found it" log. I also emailed the owner and let him know why I deleted the DNF. I'm all for people doing cache maintenance, I often replace full logs, failing ziploc bags etc, but I think replacing a cache thats been muggled in order to avoid a DNF is a little sketchy. Of course, that's my opinion, and I figure that and 59 cents will get me a Krystal. What's the boards opinion on this kind of thing?

 

Personally I would have left the DNF, and also logged a Find, and you can tell the story how it was misisng when you were last there, but was replaced by whatever user replaced it.

 

I agree. I see no reason to delete the original DNF.