Jump to content

DNF - to log or not to log


rkylem
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I've seen this topic many times on many different forums, but in scanning through recent posts on this board, I couldn't find a recent discussion.

 

So, there's pros and cons to both sides of this.

 

Yesterday I had an unfortunate multiple DNF day. Maybe the caches are still there, maybe they're not. I suppose that's beside the point.

 

I live in an area where not many people log DNFs, unfortunately. I also live in an area where there are a million micros hidden in high traffic areas and an area where rural areas that have caches hidden are prone to flooding. Also, there are many caches around that haven't been logged in months... pushing years.

 

I usually log a DNF when I can't find a cache. Sometimes I visit a site more than once before I log a DNF if I feel that there is a reason I couldn't look for the cache properly.

 

If no one logs a DNF, the cache owner isn't likely to check on their cache.

 

... but a cache, which may still be there, with a DNF (or perhaps several) may discourage others from going to look for it.

 

So... what do you think? :P

Link to comment

If no one logs a DNF, the cache owner isn't likely to check on their cache.

 

... but a cache, which may still be there, with a DNF (or perhaps several) may discourage others from going to look for it.

Log the DNF. Like you said, if no one logs a DNF, the owner isn't likely to check on their cache. Although, truth being told, the owner agreed to maintain the cache when they placed it. It is their responsibility! A good cache owner should go by the cache now and then anyway to verify it is in place, properly hidden, in good repair, has room on the log, not full of water or trash.........

 

A DNF doesn't mean the cache isn't there, it only means it wasn't found. Only a string of DNFs should be a discouragement, but that is gotten around with a maintenance note from the owner (see above) verifying the cache is available. Then, it becomes more of a challenge.

Link to comment

 

I live in an area where not many people log DNFs, unfortunately.

 

 

By logging your DNF's, it gives you a record of your venture, perhaps giving you an idea later as to why you missed the cache and what to think about if you choose to revisit the site. It's too bad others in your area don't record them, since it is their own track record. Some folks have an ego to feed, I guess :P

 

I'm just new with only 10 finds and some DNF's, too, and even now I'm glad I have a running record here at GC. In no way can anyone remember all the specifics of past hunts, so why not use the tools provided here? And, oh yea, now that I'm hooked, Premium Membership is on the agenda; another set of valuable tools here at GC!!

 

Dick

Edited by RV'n Iowans
Link to comment

Always log your DNF (if you actually looked for the cache).

 

There are several good reasons for it, and not any bad ones that I can come up with.

 

1) It lets the owner know the cache is 'in play'.

2) It lets the owner know they may want to check on the cache.

3) it gives the owner an indication of the caches actual difficulty. When we rate a cache we are taking our best guess...that needs to be tempered with reality. If people can't find it, it's harder, if they all can find it it's easier.

4) Some finders like to find easy caches...DNF's let them know the cache isn't easy even if the rating is off.

5) Some finders like to find challenges...

6) Reviewers sometimes go through caches with a lot of DNF's and ask the owner what's up. It helps sort out the inactive owners from the active ones and remind them to keep up with their caches.

Link to comment

If you don't log a DNF how is the owner going to know you didn't find it? If he sees a few in a row he knows he should check on it. If people are not logging their DNFs and the cache is indeed gone, then others will probably wast their time looking for a missing cache.

 

If you log a DNF and it is actually there, no harm. Most owners won't go out and check until there are 2 or 3 in a row. A recent DNF may discourage a small number of people from looking for it, but I think most won't be discouraged unless they see a few in a row.

 

A can't think of any benefits of not logging DNFs.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

I usually log a DNF when I can't find a cache. Sometimes I visit a site more than once before I log a DNF if I feel that there is a reason I couldn't look for the cache properly.

 

If no one logs a DNF, the cache owner isn't likely to check on their cache.

 

... but a cache, which may still be there, with a DNF (or perhaps several) may discourage others from going to look for it.

 

So... what do you think? :P

Recently on a drive back from the desert, after dark, we stopped to look for a cache. Under the circumstances, we didn't look for very long. My DNF log reflected that, letting the owner know I was there, but also letting him know the reason for the DNF was probably our limited, dark-time search.

 

Unless he gets other DNFs by people who search under more optimal conditions, he won't worry about the cache. If others read my detailed DNF log, it shouldn't discourage them from stopping to look for the cache. If they see the picture I posted, they might make sure they stop at that unique location. :)

 

Like briansnat, I "can't think of any benefits of not logging DNFs." Each of the 271 DNFs I have logged tells a story . . . some of which are much more interesting than many of my "Found it" logs. :P

Link to comment

When I first started back in March, I did not log DNF's, but rather emailed the owner telling them I was having trouble finding it and could I get some help. When I emailed an owner that is in the same town I am they gave me some tips on why I should log the DNF. Now I could kick myself as I don't know which I tried for at the beginning and couldn't find. I now log every DNF I get, and some of those stories I wrote are halarious as to how stupid and far off we were from the cache, and others annoy me because if we would have checked one more hole, tree whatever, we would have found it.

Link to comment

I have major problems with people who do not log DNF and more problems with people that change DNF to notes or found its later. Instead of rambling on and on I will say this:

 

Did you ever find a cache, sign the log, and the not log a Found It online? If not why? Because you Found It right? Then if you look and Did Not Find it then you should log it with the same enthusiasm.

 

For what it is worth I just counted and have 428 DNF logs. The majority is when I first really started caching and would DNF a lot of caches 4 or 5 times. I'm not counting but guessing I later found about 60% of those DNFs. I had 11 DNF in one day. Man I must be a horrible cacher.

Link to comment

There are two options:

1) don't log the DNF and someone behind you may not seek that cache. Nothing else happens.

2) log the DNF and alert the cache owner and potential seekers that you didn't find it. The owner may then decide to check on the status of cache and post a note to the cache page, and even replace a missing cache. Potential seekers are aware that a previous seeker didn't find it, and can make a more educated decision on whether to proceed.

Seems like an easy decision to me. :P

Link to comment

I've seen this topic many times on many different forums, but in scanning through recent posts on this board, I couldn't find a recent discussion.

 

So, there's pros and cons to both sides of this.

 

...

 

I usually log a DNF when I can't find a cache. Sometimes I visit a site more than once before I log a DNF if I feel that there is a reason I couldn't look for the cache properly.

 

If no one logs a DNF, the cache owner isn't likely to check on their cache.

 

... but a cache, which may still be there, with a DNF (or perhaps several) may discourage others from going to look for it.

 

So... what do you think? :P

 

If I have actually searched for the cache (i.e., arrived at Ground Zero) and have not found it, I will log a DNF.

 

I am not sure what the "pros" of not logging DNFs are? How does it benefit anyone NOT to log a DNF? Furthermore, it seems counterproductive to go back and delete DNFs if one eventually finds the cache.

 

Cheers

Link to comment

I don't take the copies of the cache page, hints and logs with me when I'm out. Some of the caches spend many weeks in my gpsr before I attempt them so I don't recall the cache info either. So if I don't find one the first time I usually don't log it. I will come back here, read the notes and attempt the find again. If I don't find it on the second time I log the DNF.

 

There is one I have tried a third time and still DNF. I didn't create a new log entry, but edited my current DNF to show I tried a third time. I'm also the last person to log anything on this cache. Between the second and third search I did email the cache owner for some help with it, but never got a response.

 

If I have a previous DNF on a cache but find it later, I don't change or delete that DNF. I will had a new Found It log though.

Edited by Nimnifnof
Link to comment

You need to log your DNFs to help you keep up with DNF milestones. I can remember being psyched about 100 DNFs! I confess, I'm somewhere between double 00's now and don't even know where or even which hundred, but when I close in on the next milestone I'll get all happy again. And there's all that history.

 

I am quite shocked by the recent trend of "arm-chair DNF'ing". People logging DNFs who have never been anywhere near the cache. This is a sad state of affairs. :laughing:

 

j/k :lol:

Link to comment
Recently on a drive back from the desert, after dark, we stopped to look for a cache. Under the circumstances, we didn't look for very long. My DNF log reflected that, letting the owner know I was there, but also letting him know the reason for the DNF was probably our limited, dark-time search.
I wouldn't have logged a DNF for that cache or any cache unless I really couldn't find the cache after a good effort. Stopping for a few seconds and looking for a cache and then logging a DNF creates a false trigger with people that use GSAK to filter out caches by using DNF logs. I use GSAK to filter out all caches with two consecutive DNFs. So if you and others stopped at a cache for a few seconds and then you all log a DNF then everyone that uses that type of filter would get faked out and would falsely filter that cache out. So you are diverting some people from looking for that cache by doing that. So there is one benefit of only logging a DNF when you truly can't find the cache! Finally, I'm not sure it's a benefit to the owner to know that someone stopped for a few seconds to look for his/her cache. I would care less if someone did that. It's a tease. I care about reading the found logs and the "true" DNF logs.
Link to comment
Finally, I'm not sure it's a benefit to the owner to know that someone stopped for a few seconds to look for his/her cache. I would care less if someone did that. It's a tease. I care about reading the found logs and the "true" DNF logs.

 

As a owner I want to know if people are hunting my cache, whether it's for 1 minute or an hour. Also, if I have it rated 1 star for difficulty and people are not finding it after a few minutes of searching, I'll know that I should probably adjust my rating upward.

Link to comment

I will log a DNF if I get to the location and I am able to give it a good searching. If I only am able to hunt for a few minutes or muggle traffic prevents a good search I will log it as a Note.

 

I figure it tells the owner that I was there but it doesn't mess up people who use DNF filters in GSAK. It doesn't seem right for a cache to get four DNFs if those four seachers only had a combined hunting time of six minutes.

 

I placed a simple cache in a city park this spring. It was getting logged on a regular basis up until late May. I never really noticed that the logs stopped. Then, just last week, someone posted a DNF. Well, it was a really simple cache and so I disabled it right away because ANYONE should have been able to find it.

 

Sure enough, cache was long gone. I wonder how many people spent time looking for it since May but were too embarrassed to log a DNF on an easy cache. DNFs benefit everyone and I took the time to send an email to the cacher who logged the DNF (a newbie with only four finds) to thank him for posting it and to encourage him to keep up the practice.

Link to comment
Finally, I'm not sure it's a benefit to the owner to know that someone stopped for a few seconds to look for his/her cache. I would care less if someone did that. It's a tease. I care about reading the found logs and the "true" DNF logs.

 

As a owner I want to know if people are hunting my cache, whether it's for 1 minute or an hour. Also, if I have it rated 1 star for difficulty and people are not finding it after a few minutes of searching, I'll know that I should probably adjust my rating upward.

My daughter came up to me and told me that she lost her car keys last week. My first thought was "Oh carp!" Then I asked her if she looked everywhere and she said that she looked a little bit. :laughing: Then we "actually looked" and found them. So she gave me a little scare for nothing. :lol: That's how I feel when someone logs a DNF on one of my caches.

 

These days some people are actually competing for most DNF logs. So a lot of them are frivolous and so I am ignoring them. So that means that one of my caches could actually be missing but because so many people are "crying wolf," I'm not going to believe that my cache is actually missing until someone logs something very convincing. So IMHO this loose DNF logging practice will lead to more caches not being attended to due to false alarms. On the flip side, a tighter DNF logging practice is very helpful to cache owners. That is a big benefit. :D I also don't understand why you can't just log a note for a quick but unsuccessful stop to look?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...